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

[Jirh]

48 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Rigel you could flip this (to play devils advocate) and claim no one has been kicked out / banned for accusations precisely BECAUSE it would cement the claim of this being a cult. 

That would be a truly paranoid devil 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Jirh damned if you do, damned if you don't 🃏🎭

[zurew]

53 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

What additional facts do you have that relate directly to that suicidal moment ?

I dont have any that Im sure of, because im not sure exactly what was the time when that insta post happened, but we can consider the other bullet points that were mentioned by Carl and decide under which hypothesis all of those facts are more expected.

The Leo having a random suicidal low on a spiritual path or the Leo having psychotic symptoms one. (or people can provide additional hypotheses or you can also claim that you dont want to explain those other facts yet you only want to claim that the insta fact is explained by him being on a spiritual journey)

We can extend the timeline and see that Leo has been claiming to be the most conscious on the planet for years now , claimed to be the standard of epistemology (3-4 years after the insta procedure) and he still demonize and undermines everyone who disagrees with him on the stuff he cares about , and he still havent backed off from claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera (desptie never being able to show proof of that despite trying),  previous to the insta stuff he had to be extremely pushed to slightly walk back his claim about awakenign being able to heal you completely and solve all of your problems (im pretty sure that in that video , he mentioned that he will try to heal humanity and stuff like that, because he thought he will be able to do that).

And note again about the healing and problem solving claims that the main issue isn't even necessarily that he is agnostic on those claims (because he is not), the main issue is the absolute/extremely high certainty that he outplayed during the times he made those claims and then being reluctant to walk back the claims or to significantly lower his credence about those claims when he is pushed on them.

The same goes for him making claims about how conscious other people are and how he must be more conscious than everyone else - you can look through the links of just this post and think about how much of this is easily explainable on your hypothesis about him just having a spiritual low - and also im curious about how long you want to extend the timeline for that hypothesis.

I think this was also during or close to the insta period, where he  banned a bunch of people and threatened one of the banned person that he will kill him if he wants to corrupt his teachings which in practice just meant disagreeing with Leo on spirituality and disagreeing with Leo being the most conscious person on the planet.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont have any that Im sure of, because im not sure exactly what was the time when that insta post happened, but we can consider the other bullet points that were mentioned by Carl and decide under which hypothesis all of those facts are more expected.

The Leo having a random low on a spiritual path or the Leo having psychotic symptoms one. (or people can provide additional hypotheses or you can also claim that you dont want to explain those other facts yet you only want to claim that the insta fact is explained by him being on a spiritual journey)

We can extend the timeline and see that Leo has been claiming to be the most conscious on the planet for years now , claimed to be the standard of epistemology (3-4 years after the insta procedure) and he still demonize and undermines everyone who disagrees with him on the stuff he cares about , and he still havent backed off from claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera (desptie never being able to show proof of that despite trying),  previous to the insta stuff he had to be extremely pushed to slightly walk back his claim about awakenign being able to heal you completely  and solving all of your problems (im pretty sure that in that video , he mentioned that he will try to heal humanity and stuff like that, because he thought he will be able to do that).

During the insta period he also banned a bunch of people and threatened one of the banned person that he will kill him if he wants to corrupt his teachings which in practice just meant disagreeing with Leo on spirituality and disagreeing with Leo being the msot conscious person on the planet.

Fair enough.

(I guess I just got triggered in the moment, I wouldn't want someone describing a suicidal event of mine as proof that I might not be a suitable leader. But I hear what you're saying.)

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Fair enough.

(I guess I just got triggered in the moment, I wouldn't want someone describing a suicidal event of mine as proof that I might not be a suitable leader. But I hear what you're saying.)

I understand the feeling when you are being unfairly psychoanalized, especially when vulnerable moments of yours are weaponized against you, but I think that in this case it is directly relevant to the question at hand (about whether he has psychotic tendencies or not).

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Where is the best place on the internet, for people who are serious about spirituality, to hangout ?

What kind of question is this? There is a difference between pointing out an example and excluding all other possible examples. That's a bit of something you call "epistemology".

 

6 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I wasn't aware of this. I think most people here have had suicidal moments at one point or another. Using that as proof of psychotic tendencies is a bit of a low blow.

Let's assume Leo was not suicidal before being seemingly under the influence (which would be a reasonable assumption considering his overall state of mind on the forum and in videos). Then while seemingly under the influence, he suddenly started seriously entertaining suicide.

If he did not seriously entertain suicide in his sober state of mind, would it be fair to say he started entertaining some beliefs that were not grounded in his usual wants and desires and thus they were in a sense delusional and not grounded in the usual state of affairs and thus psychotic?

"He was not in a right state of mind, he didn't really want to take his life, it was the drugs that made him do it". What does one call that? A drug-induced psychotic episode? Or do you have a different term for that?

 

6 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

If you're comparing Leo to a cult leader who lost it and decided that one of the members needed to be killed because they have negative energy, then my sense is that you might be underestimating him a bit.

Suggested* Again, all it takes is one thought, just like a suicidal thought. And as we've seen, that thought could seemingly come out of nowhere given the right conditions.

 

6 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

As far as the members that got banned, the only name I recognized there was Nahm. From what I recall he seemed to struggle to string together two coherent sentences at times. However conscious or not he may have been, he was mostly confusing to people, so I was not that sorry to see him go.

Yet Leo constantly accuses people of "not understanding" and that is not a grounds for banning himself. A standard for thee but not for me. I personally got more value from Nahm's posts than anybody on the forum.

Communicating something like non-duality need not always be linear or overly concrete or devoid of poetry (as long as you're consistent with it), it might in fact give a false impression that you can get it by simply reading it. On the other hand, the worst thing you can do is to purport to use clear language and then present logical fallacies (like in solipsism).

Signal mixing and double-binds is the worst thing and Leo does that often ("don't trust me, think for yourself" -> "I'm the #1 authority"; "epistemology, be aware of self-deception, self-bias" -> "I'm the most awake person in the universe"). When it happens that often, it starts looking more like a tool for coercion and control (whether conscious or unconscious) rather than an accurate presentation of one's values.

 

6 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

As far as the other issues go, I hope you and Leo sort things out, because my gut says he still has some valuable stuff to teach.

More shoulds, more false dichotomies. He can have valueable things to teach and still have things he can improve.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Wilhelm44]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What kind of question is this? There is a difference between pointing out an example and excluding all other possible examples. That's a bit of something you call "epistemology".

 

Let's assume Leo was not suicidal before being seemingly under the influence (which would be a reasonable assumption considering his overall state of mind on the forum and in videos). Then while seemingly under the influence, he suddenly started seriously entertaining suicide.

If he did not seriously entertain suicide in his sober state of mind, would it be fair to say he started entertaining some beliefs that were not grounded in his usual wants and desires and thus they were in a sense delusional and not grounded in the usual state of affairs and thus psychotic?

"He was not in a right state of mind, he didn't really want to take his life, it was the drugs that made him do it". What does one call that? A drug-induced psychotic episode? Or do you have a different term for that?

 

Suggested* Again, all it takes is one thought, just like a suicidal thought. And as we've seen, that thought could seemingly come out of nowhere given the right conditions.

 

Yet Leo constantly accuses people of "not understanding" and that is not a grounds for banning himself. A standard for thee but not for me. I personally got the most value from Nahm's post than anybody on the forum.

 

More shoulds, more false dichotomies. He can have valueable things to teach and still have things he can improve.

Points taken.

[Wilhelm44]

@zurew  So just out of curiosity, if Leo stopped calling himself the most conscious person on the planet. And if he qualified his statements about other people's awakenings, by saying that he could be wrong, would that be enough for you not to view this place as a cult anymore ?

ie what would ultimately tilt it from being a cult to not being a cult, for you personally ?

Edited 2 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[zurew]

46 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

damned if you do, damned if you don't 🃏🎭

I think I gave Leo a couple of very easily implementable and actionable steps in  how he can reduce cult accusations and how he can reduce cult dynamics more.

I dont think you did this , but I dont like the general sentiment that some kind of giant or impossible thing is being asked from Leo here by me or by other people.

On 2026. 06. 13. at 0:28 AM, zurew said:

Instead of doubling down and trying to shove down your one highly specific and conveniently declared defintion of cult inside everyone's throats in a way where you also imply that everyone who disagree with you on that must be wrong and there is no room for disagreement -  you can just stop playing  superiority games and you can just stop undermining literally everyone else's takes and views on things you care about and these threads are gonna die very quick and they will lose all of their appeal.

You can at any given moment : stop declaring yourself to be the exclusive and proper standard of epistemology , and stop explicitly saying and stop implying that everyone else is spiritually and or cognitively impaired for disagreeing with you on matters that you care about and you can stop at any moment declaring yourself to be the most conscious human being in the universe.

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

  So just out of curiosity, if Leo stopped calling himself the most conscious person on the planet. And if he qualified his statements about other people's awakenings, by saying that he could be wrong, would that be enough for you not to view this place as a cult anymore ?

ie what would ultimately tilt it from being a cult to not being a cult, for you personally ?

If you add to that that he wont impose a false dichotomy on people who disagree with him on things he cares about (meaning giving room for people to disagree with him on things without them having to be self-deceived or dumb or not understanding etc) ,then that would significantly lower down things for me and that would be sufficient for me.

[Wilhelm44]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

If you add to that that he wont impose a false dichotomy on people who disagree with him on things he cares about (meaning giving room for people to disagree with him on things without them having to be self-deceived or dumb or not understanding etc) ,then that would significantly lower down things for me and that would be sufficient for me.

Nice, 3 simple points.

(You're a proper sharp debater. Finally some rest.)

[Thought Art]

I stand by my choice of words on this thread as en expression of the warrior side of me. However, whether or not they should be publically expressed it another matter. I do care about the well being and ecosystem of the forum. I’ve been here a long time. If people want to insult this place and me.

I want to be able to swear rarely. But, hey. I am willing to talk it out. Maybe I can’t do that.

I respect forum users. I am sure I can do better. I want to approach the forum differently. More thoughtfully going forward. I think this means less interaction and more reading. I am sharing this here just as the outcome for others as to what happened when I swore above.

 Leo  has sweared on occasion, other people have done this. If Mods want to issue me warnings without ever speaking to me directly that’s their choice. I would appreciate more direct communication and chance to correct errors. I’ve been around you know? Sometimes you gotta speak to someone and help them see something in themselves. The warning points can help me grow. Thanks!

 

When people say these things about the work this is deeply offensive to me. I’ve put a lot of time into the forum, and following this work. So, honestly to people who think this is a cult. @#$#$ #$%..

I have nothing actually against you. But, Your not going to shake me or rattle me up anymore. I don’t care you think that and I’ve determined this is not a cult. I don’t need to fight or defend this ever again. 

But, going forward I will not swear to the best of my maturity and would appreciate people in this community to help me grow in this matter.

I respect the ecosystem of the forum more than I do swearing at you guys. My apologies. 

Edited 36 minutes ago by Thought Art

[Joseph Maynor]

@zurew  I find use of "dishonest and bad faith actor" to be kind of a strong conclusion to make about someone.  I'm seeing this used more and more.  That is a strong conclusion and a personal one that kind of goes to character and away from the argument itself.  It is sort of an ad hominem.

Edited 52 minutes ago by Joseph Maynor

[zurew]

38 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I find use of "dishonest and bad faith actor" to be kind of a strong conclusion to make about someone.  I'm seeing this used more and more.  That is a strong conclusion and a personal one that kind of goes to character and away from the argument itself.  It is sort of an ad hominem.

It is, and I could show you and walk you through my reasoning why I said what I said there at that particular moment (but also feel free to disagree whether the accusation there was appropriate or not), but also I would rather not do that, because we seem to have settled things with him and we seem to be on good terms right now and I would rather not re-open the convo about character talk (that has to do with someone other than Leo) if it is not necessary.

Edited 16 minutes ago by zurew

[Someone here]

I don’t see the point of the passion certain people on this thread are conjuring up links and data to accuse Leo of being a cult leader as if they are collecting data against someone who raped their daughter or something. This is a casual forum there is no serious or actual cultish activity happening here .  Banning people or being the number one authority is not so pleasurable but come on you are obviously not going to boss him in his place .If you truly think this place is a cult why don’t you just shut the fuck up and log out and never again come back ?  That’s number one .

number two. Yes Leo is a weirdo sometimes he does come off cultish . Like “I’m the only person who understands god in all space and time ever never and nobody can stop me from conquering the world “ , good lord . 
But here’s the thing you can just utilize the parts the resonate with you in the forum and avoid all this unnecessary confusion. This is honestly one of the most beautiful communities you can be part of . Leo has dialed down a lot on his arrogance and he sounds so casual and down to earth these days . He didn’t change his radical views about awakening and what it means but he surrendered a lot of his arrogance. 
 

[zurew]

On 2026. 06. 12. at 7:15 AM, zurew said:

The defenses provided here were almost never that the provided data and facts arent true or that they arent problematic -  the defense was that the problematic facts  arent sufficient to satisfy your working definition of a cult.

It also worth to bring attention back to the fact how disagreement was largely handled here. After agreeing with you that the things that you outlined are problematic, those same members want you to leave the group rather than collabing with you and putting pressure on the leader to make a change about things that everyone agreed are problematic and whose resolution would make everything better. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

This is a casual forum there is no serious or actual cultish activity happening here. 

Ghis-laine Max-well 👏 Yaas.

 

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

If you truly think this place is a cult why don’t you just shut the fuck up and log out and never again come back ? 

Shoulds, more shoulds. Yaas.

 

14 minutes ago, Someone here said:

But here’s the thing you can just utilize the parts the resonate with you in the forum and avoid all this unnecessary confusion. This is honestly one of the most beautiful communities you can be part of .

"But he is not all bad". Yaas.

 

16 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Leo has dialed down a lot on his arrogance and he sounds so casual and down to earth these days . He didn’t change his radical views about awakening and what it means but he surrendered a lot of his arrogance.

 

On 11.6.2026 at 7:03 PM, Carl-Richard said:

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.

 

I think we've uncovered the script.

[Someone here]

@Carl-Richard childish and pathetic. Notice that I didn’t argue against the cult accusation because it’s so ridiculous to even consider this community Is a cult . You wholeheartedly believe this is a cult organization and Leo’s work in its core isn’t about anything beneficial for personal development or spiritual growth? If the answer is actually yes then just leave .