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

[JoshB]

On 6/3/2026 at 6:39 PM, Inliytened1 said:

To me its a pursuit of Truth.  And let's face it not everyone is gonna make it with meditation.  So psychedelics are emphasized here.  I don't agree with Leo on everything.  And if this was a cult you and I would probably have been "quietly" dismissed by now.  I don't agree that psychedelics can give you a deeper enlightenment than meditation.  We differ in that awakening is awakening and it is Absolute.   There are not Infinite degrees of awakening.  There isn't some crazy alien state you can reach.i  do agree however that Consciousness is not human either it is Pure Spirit.  The human part is, as we know, this imaginary ego that co-opts Consciousness for itself.   So if you look back I've had plenty of arguments with Leo about this stuff.  And I'm still here.  His work is invaluable if someone actually wants to put in the time.  But be careful because you will lose your sanity and you just might not get it back.  This is stated.  Such is spirituality.  It is serious shit.  But normies don't understand any of this stuff so to them it appears crazy.  Of course.  That is how it should be. 

 

There are infinite degrees of awakening, why do you think so many people agree and disagree on what awakening is? If it was just a binary switch there would be a lot more agreement on what awakening is. Conciousness is Absolute and can become concious of absolutely every part of itself. I would also say that there are thresholds to awakening, you can awaken to life is a dream, self is other, nothing outside concious. And still not have the direct Conciousness you are God. Another one of those thresholds is realizing conciousness is absolute. 

Also you have never done pyschdelics let alone tryptimines. So how would you know that ? All of this is coming from your current state of conciousness that could change any moment with just a little alteration in your imaginary brain chemistry.

Edited 15 hours ago by JoshB

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

Dude what ?! Why would you want to be part of corruption? You and your friend are causing noise lately in accusing Leo of corruption. Why are you pussyfooting around it ? Ok case closed this is a cult in your mind then keep it to yourself. It obviously hurts Leo and people who look forward to him as a teacher to hear your constant bitching about how he did this and that in the past . Sounds like you are not even serious about you’re doing on top of that because you’re afraid to leverage up your position to just say farewell. If that’s not the purpose then what’s the purpose of what your doing regarding your posts about actualized being a cult ?

We're honestly discussing what a cult is and when people want to steer the discussion towards talking about negatives, that's what happens. That's a function of Leo insisting on defining cult as something negative and his minions constantly begging for any clue that could satisfy that definition.

Had this been my forum or had I been having this discussion in one of my earlier university classes, we would probably talk about how weird your beliefs really would have to be to be considered a cult, not the level of "brainwashing" or "mind control" is supposedly required (although that could be a side discussion about those kinds of cults).

My professor opened the discussion of cults saying "cults are not necessarily something bad, that's a common misconception" (paraphrasing). Leo has chosen a different route and that is reflected in his discussions. When he wants to project the notion of cult as something negative and something external to him, don't be surprised that when people disagree, that projection lands squarely back at himself.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Refusing to accept word definitions change and alter through time is a type of etymological fallacy. 

The term "cult" and any negative connotations it has, has evolved too, I my opinion. Especially with the advent of the internet. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. And words have definitions based on how society uses them in context.

The word "nice" used to mean foolish, stupid, senseless. If we adopted that meaning.... Well. We would be walking around taking offense and dishing out insults in our own little bubble of reality.

[How to be wise]

A cult needs members, which Actualized doesn’t have anymore 

[Carl-Richard]

55 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The term "cult" and any negative connotations it has, has evolved too, I my opinion. Especially with the advent of the internet. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. And words have definitions based on how society uses them in context.

Especially with the advent of the "cult" of best-selling books, which is less about academic rigor and more about what is most intriguing and disturbing, which is what the anti-cult movement where Leo gets his definition from plays on.

Of course cults are associated with "mind control" and "brainwashing" and "sexual/financial exploitation" in this context. That's what sells. Less people want to hear about cults that believe in slightly wacky things, more about evil boogeymen, mass murderers, rapists, psychopathic manipulators.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Of course cults are associated with "mind control" and "brainwashing" and "sexual/financial exploitation" in this context. That's what sells. Less people want to hear about cults that believe in slightly wacky things, more about evil boogeymen, mass murderers, rapists, psychopathic manipulators.

Which just so happens to play into self deception. By categorically dismissing what a cult could be, we discard having to critically assess whether we may be IN a cult or participating in cultish behaviour. Or whether we may actually have been (the horror and intellectual offence!) deceived ourselves.

Shutting down open debate is a way to avoid cognitive dissonance.

[Rigel]

How’s the masturbation going guys?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

28 minutes ago, Rigel said:

How’s the masturbation going guys?

Great! A true edge session 

@Carl-Richard, @zurew and I are working our way up to gooner status at the current rate 

[Rigel]

Let me just say I love it. Quite an elegant tension we have here.

[Thought Art]

Sorry for swearing everyone. We should always speak as best we can with respect and non-violence.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Rigel said:

Let me just say I love it. Quite an elegant tension we have here.

The invitation is open to engage with the argument presented, base on receipts. 

Or you can bring receipts for a new premise.

A good case can be argued for the craziest things and respect is due.

The trouble is, some users will have an emotional investment and attachment that prevents engaging in an unbiased and unemotional way (not that emotions invalidate an argument, but they can steer us into fallacy).

Quote

Sorry for swearing everyone. We should always speak as best we can with respect and non-violence.

@Thought Art Accepted. You bad, bad boy 

Edited 5 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Thought Art]

@Natasha Tori Maru I’m pretty bad. My bad boy era. 
 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Thought Art Heh heh it's okay, I'm a fan. I like em' a bit twisted, touch of the maverick 😈 I fuckup just as much TBH

If contrition is shown. And a real attempt to correct behaviour, coupled with receiving critical feedback in a constructive, forward focussed manner - I will always have someone's back. If you're in it to fight and change I got ya.

I care less about who a person has been and more about whether they are capable of honest self-correction. I tend to view lack of responsibility, integrity and bigotry as large factors for my own personal low investment and good opinion. The worst is when behaviour does not change but verbal apologies are abundant. Even then, people can remain stubborn for years and then pivot to changing when I least expect it.

I am not married to my own judgements.

I am pretty comfortable with ambiguity.

Edited 5 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Thought Art]

@Natasha Tori Maru I am generally good natured. But, I can flip my lip from time to time which is a character flaw for sure. 
 

Especially for this forum and the video catalogue. Gotta stand up for it. But, there is a right and wrong way. 
 

I apologize and going forward I will do my best (as usual notice the 13,000 posts) speak with generally respectful words.

I see the importance of allowing open dialogue around the nature of the video catalogue, forum, the ideas, concepts, techniques taught in Actualized.org teachings. 

I would say part of me is still stubborn around having said it, because at the end of the day an intelligent person who honestly tries to learn from Leo isn’t going to end up in a cult. It’s highly unlikely. He teaches studying under many people, reading many books, and getting direct experience. If it’s not true, it’s not real. Simple as that. A cult wouldn’t teach you radical open mindedness, to question everything, to teach consciousness, epistemology, post modernism, philosophy of science, introspection, what it happiness, what is love, 35 fields of self help, etc etc 

Unfortunately, it is annoying and tiring seeing the disrespectful videos, posts, and threads misleading people and insulting the information that is available here. Calling it a cult, and people insulting them forum etc is foolish to me. Though, I understand why it happens. 

Actualized.org is a school teaching the pursuit of Truth and pure understanding. The wisdom in the video catalogue is phenomenal.

A major problem is I think some of you guys don’t the watch the videos.

Forum Leo isn’t like, Leo at his best. Thats light and casual Leo generally unless we ask him a good question well asked. 

No teacher is perfect clean of self deception 100% of the time, Leo knows that. But, we can do our best. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Thought Art

[Wilhelm44]

17 hours ago, zurew said:

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).

I would just like to add one final point, and then I'm done.

By using suicidal moments as part of your case to point to psychotic tendencies, you are basically including everyone

in the spiritual world. (Because once again, hands up everyone here who has never had a single suicidal moment in their lives.)

Therefore it would be best to stick to those other or additional facts you mentioned, in the process of determining psychotic tendencies.

So whether or not some supposedly smart psychiatrist thinks that suicidal moments points to psychotic tendencies, if you include that metric, you are basically excluding most spiritual people in the world from being seen as suitable leaders to any group. Because by that very definition then we all have psychotic tendencies here.

Suicidal moments can also point to a powerful rebirth, but this is language that most psychiatrists probably wouldn't understand.

Edited 1 hour ago by Wilhelm44

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Thought Art said:

 because at the end of the day an intelligent person who honestly tries to learn from Leo isn’t going to end up in a cult. It’s highly unlikely. He teaches studying under many people, reading many books, and getting direct experience. If it’s not true, it’s not real. Simple as that.

I can see what you are pointing to here, but I have to ask - does this claim hold up or is it based on some large assumptions that can act to strengthen flaws in the argument? The assumptions I see (not an exhaustive list) : 

• intelligence protects against cult involvement
• the person is honestly attempting to learn
• exposure to multiple sources automatically reduces the risk of undue influence
• a cult and independent enquiry are mutually exclusive
• direct experience is a reliable corrective
• probability of cult-ic attachment is "highly unlikely" - no evidence supplied for this at all
• leo is not functioning as a central authority and
• intellectual sophistication protects people from influence

None of the above are guaranteed - and again I am just objectively looking at the argument presented.

Quote

A cult wouldn’t teach you radical open mindedness, to question everything, to teach consciousness, epistemology, post modernism, philosophy of science, introspection, what it happiness, what is love, 35 fields of self help, etc etc 

Teaching critical thinking and epistemology doesn't automatically prevent cult-like dynamics. The question is whether those tools are applied consistently, including to the teacher and the community itself.

Edited 2 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Teaching critical thinking and epistemology doesn't automatically prevent cult-like dynamics.

True.

I would be curious to know though if there is an actual example of a cult out there, who did place a heavy emphasis on teaching epistemology and critical thinking, and still ended up going down a dark path ?

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The question is whether those tools are applied consistently, including to the teacher and the community itself.

Indeed

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I would just like to add one final point, and then I'm done.

By using suicidal moments as part of your case to point to psychotic tendencies, you are basically including everyone

in the spiritual world. (Because once again, hands up everyone here who has never had a single suicidal moment in their lives.)

Therefore it would be best to stick to those other or additional facts you mentioned, in the process of determining psychotic tendencies.

So whether or not some supposedly smart psychiatrist thinks that suicidal moments points to psychotic tendencies, if you include that metric, you are basically excluding most spiritual people in the world from being seen as suitable leaders to any group. Because by that very definition then we all have psychotic tendencies here.

Suicidal moments can also point to a powerful rebirth, but this is language that most psychiatrists probably wouldn't understand.

I disagree - again I dont think that the fact that a data point can be expected under multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses (someone going through a spiritual journey, someone actually being psychotic etc) makes it so that that data point should therefore be excluded from being probability raising on both mutually exclusive hypotheses.

By considering suicidal moments, there isn't any entailment of wrong categorization of spiritual people and gurus, because only considering that data point leaves you with an underdetermination issue (meaning, just from the fact that you consider that data point from that alone you cant know which hypothesis is actually the case - there isn't any clean inference from the insta point where you can get to either hypotheses being true - therefore to find a symmetry breaker, you will explore additional facts about the person).

One reason why I dont think that underdetermined data should be ignored (and why it should be recognized that it raises the probability on both hypotheses), is  because in some cases you won't be motivated to go on a symmetry breaker finding journey and wont be sensitive to recognize and to consider additional data and to do an investigation about a person, when you should. (for instance, you could see the insta data and then immediately and automatically conclude that thats just a person having a suicidial low on a spiritual journey and then not even be motivated to explore the other data).

Edited 36 minutes ago by zurew

[Wilhelm44]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

I disagree - again I dont think that the fact that a data point can be expected under multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses (someone going through a spiritual journey, someone actually being psychotic etc) makes it so that that data point should therefore be excluded from being probability raising on both mutually exclusive hypotheses.

By considering suicidal moments, there isn't any entailment of wrong categorization of spiritual people and gurus, because only considering that data point leaves you with an underdetermination issue (meaning, just from the fact that you consider that data point from that alone you cant know which hypothesis is actually the case - there isn't any clean inference from the insta point where you can get to either hypotheses being true - therefore to find a symmetry breaker, you will explore additional facts about the person).

One reason why I dont think that underdetermined data should be ignored (and why it should be recognized that it raises the probability on both hypotheses), is  because in some cases you won't be motivated to go on a symmetry breaker finding journey and to do an investigation about a person, when you should. (for instance, you could see the insta data and then immediately and automatically conclude that thats just a person having a suicidial low on a spiritual journey and then not even be motivated to explore the other data).

Okay, but can you agree then, that by that very definition of using suicidal moments as pointers to psychotic tendencies, that most people on this forum have potential psychotic tendencies ?

Have you not had any suicidal moments in your life ?

Edited 44 minutes ago by Wilhelm44