Frequently Asked Questions

The CLCI scores groups on the spectrum of control — not on whether their beliefs are true, weird, mainstream, or unpopular. Two reasons your intuition may diverge from our score:

• Theology vs control. A group can be theologically unusual but operationally low-control (most modern Pagan / Wiccan traditions); another can be theologically mainstream but operationally high-control (some IFB churches, some Hasidic courts).
• Spectrum, not binary. The CLCI is a 0–40 scale, so two groups you might both call "cults" can sit 15 points apart. See our methodology page for the full scoring breakdown.

Confidence describes the strength of public documentation, not how certain we are that the group is harmful. We use three bands:

• High — court records, government investigations, peer-reviewed academic work, multiple long-form journalistic investigations, and a substantial body of public ex-member testimony.
• Medium — credible journalism plus testimony, but limited or no court / academic record. A score may be solid even when confidence is Medium.
• Low — fragmentary anecdotal reports, single-source claims, or active controversy where reasonable observers disagree. Treat Low-confidence ratings as provisional.

Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Criteria of Thought Reform (1961) and Steven Hassan's BITE Model (1988) describe the same phenomenon at different resolutions.

• Lifton describes the qualitative texture of a totalist environment — milieu control, mystical manipulation, demand for purity, confession, sacred science, loaded language, doctrine over person, and dispensing of existence.
• BITE reorganises those observations into four actionable axes (Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotional) that map onto a checklist a clinician or family member can apply.

We use BITE as the primary scoring scaffold and surface Lifton's criteria as a secondary annotation when an entry's evidence supports them. See the glossary for both frameworks side-by-side.

Almost every harm pattern documented in destructive cults — financial exploitation, shunning, sexual abuse cover-ups, coerced confession, information control — also appears in pockets of mainstream religion, multi-level marketing, political movements, wellness communities, and online fandoms. A binary "cult / not-cult" label obscures more than it reveals; a spectrum lets us compare a fringe NRM with a mainstream denomination on the same axes and see where the actual control mechanics differ.

No. Many entries score under 10 on the CLCI — these are mainstream, low-control reference points (e.g. Pure Land Buddhism, mainline Lutheranism, secular Quakers). They are included so users can compare a high-control fringe group to a benign comparator in the same tradition. A score under 11 is generally consistent with healthy voluntary association.

Every profile cites at least one source — court documents, government reports, academic monographs, peer-reviewed papers, long-form journalism, or substantial ex-member testimony. We avoid relying on partisan apologetics from either side (counter-cult activist literature or in-group apologists) when better-quality sources exist.

For a list of organisations whose work we cite frequently, see our Resources page.

We welcome corrections. The most useful disputes include:

• A specific BITE item you believe is mis-scored, with a citation that contradicts the evidence we used.
• Documentation of a doctrinal or operational change since the last review (many high-control movements have reformed; we want to capture that).
• New ex-member testimony that materially changes the picture — even a single first-person account can move a Low-confidence score.

Open an issue on the project's GitHub repository or contact us through the Resources page. We re-review when the new material is independently verifiable.

Our editorial principle is that high-control mechanics show up in every major tradition, every political ideology, and every wellness / self-help market. That principle gets enforced by including mainstream low-control reference entries from every tradition we cover, so a reader can see the same denomination ranges from CLCI 5 to CLCI 35 depending on the specific community. If you think we are systematically over- or under-rating one tradition, the FAQ on disputing a rating applies — show us the comparator.

Yes — high-control patterns are not unique to religion. Our dataset includes political / ideological movements (e.g. authoritarian accelerationists), multi-level marketing organisations, wellness and life-coaching cults, and online influencer-led communities. The same BITE scaffold applies.

Read our blog post "How to Help Someone Considering Leaving", review the universal Warning Signs checklist, and consider contacting one of the recovery organisations on our Resources page (the International Cultic Studies Association, Freedom of Mind Resource Center, and regional helplines). Avoid confrontation; sustained, non-judgemental contact is the single best-supported predictor of a successful exit.

Yes — the methodology, scoring rubric, and group-level data are published openly so you can cite them. Please link back to the group's profile page so readers can see the underlying evidence and updates over time. The site itself is non-commercial.