Brainwashing Theory Returns Under New Names

Leading scholar describes how anti-religious activists have managed to bring back old, discredited brainwashing claims as new concepts, but with the same underlying assumptions

In an article, 6^th July 2026, in  Bitter Winter, the world’s leading online magazine on religious liberty and human rights, Dr. Massimo Introvigne, a prominent Italian author and sociologist of religion, writes extensively about the reemergence of “brainwashing” [See editor’s note 1 below] theories in today’s world.

He points out that by the close of the twentieth century, many scholars who studied new religious movements believed that the debate over so-called “cult brainwashing” [See editor’s note 1 below] had largely been settled. After decades of research spanning sociology, psychology, religious studies, and law, a broad academic consensus had emerged: claims that minority religious groups possess unique techniques capable of overriding an individual’s free will lacked credible scientific support.

Concepts such as “mind control” [See editor’s note 2 below], “brainwashing” [See editor’s note 1 below], and “coercive persuasion” were increasingly regarded not as established scientific theories but as speculative ideas that failed rigorous empirical scrutiny. Introvigne claims that rather than offering reliable explanations for religious commitment, these concepts often served as ideological tools that portrayed unpopular or unconventional faiths as inherently dangerous and helped justify discrimination, restrictive legislation, or state intervention.

This scholarly assessment gradually influenced public institutions as well. Long before governmental bodies formally addressed the issue, specialists had concluded that brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below] theories rested on weak methodological foundations and could not adequately explain why individuals joined or remained in new religious movements.

In 2020, for example, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) reinforced this view by warning that “brainwashing” [See editor’s note 1 below] rhetoric had become a characteristic feature of pseudo-scientific anti-cult ideology that threatened religious freedom. Although a small number of writers continued to defend variations of these theories, their views occupied a distinctly marginal position within mainstream academic discourse.

According to Introvigne, the rejection of brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below] theories was reflected not only in scholarship but also in the courts. Throughout the late twentieth century, judges in several democratic countries increasingly concluded that expert testimony based on claims of coercive persuasion failed to satisfy accepted standards of scientific reliability.

A landmark example came in the United States in 1990 with United States v. Fishman. During the proceedings, a federal court carefully evaluated testimony proposed by anti-cult psychologist Margaret Singer (1921-2003) and other proponents of coercive persuasion theory. After extensive examination, the court found that these theories lacked sufficient empirical validation, had not gained acceptance within the broader scientific community, and relied upon circular reasoning. As a result, the testimony was excluded, establishing an influential precedent that brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below] theories did not meet the evidentiary standards required in federal courts.

The Bitter Winter article describes how comparable developments occurred in Europe. Italy had already taken a significant step in 1981 when its Constitutional Court struck down the Fascist-era (1922-1943) criminal offense of plagio (enslaving another person’s mind), a concept that broadly resembled allegations of psychological domination or brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below]. The Court concluded that the offense rested on concepts too vague and scientifically uncertain to be compatible with constitutional protections, including freedom of religion.

Decades later, the European Court of Human Rights similarly observed that there is no universally accepted scientific definition of “mind control” [See editor’s note 2 below]. It also noted that characteristics frequently cited as evidence of coercion – strong commitment to a religious cause, communal lifestyles, deference to spiritual leaders, or energetic proselytizing – are not unique to minority religions but can be found across many established religious traditions.

By the beginning of the twenty-first century, it appeared that brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below] theories had largely disappeared from judicial practice. While the concept continued to enjoy considerable visibility in popular media and among anti-cult activists, it no longer exercised the influence it once had in courtrooms. Public advocates continued to promote simplified versions of earlier coercive persuasion models, but these arguments generally failed to persuade judges applying contemporary standards of scientific evidence. France remained an important exception, where anti-cult legislation adopted in 2001 preserved similar concepts under different terminology and where subsequent legal reforms expanded the notion of psychological subjection even further.

Yet the decline of explicit brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below] theory did not mark its complete disappearance. Rather than returning under its original name, the underlying assumptions gradually resurfaced through new legal and conceptual frameworks. According to Dr. Massimo Introvigne, this resurgence has occurred indirectly rather than through an open rehabilitation of the discredited theory itself. Instead of speaking explicitly about “brainwashing” [See editor’s note 1 below], contemporary discussions increasingly employ alternative concepts that often perform similar functions.

The paper argues that this revival can be observed along three principal trajectories. First, ideas originally developed in the context of domestic violence concerning coercive control have, in some instances, been extended into the religious sphere. Second, courts have increasingly been asked to evaluate allegations of “spiritual abuse”, introducing new legal debates about the boundaries between religious authority, personal autonomy, and psychological influence. Third, language traditionally associated with brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below] has begun to appear in interpretations of human trafficking legislation, broadening the application of coercion-based arguments beyond their original context.

These developments suggest that although the classical theory of cult brainwashing [See editor’s note 1 below] was widely rejected by scholars and courts alike, many of its core assumptions continue to re-emerge under new labels. The terminology may have changed, but the underlying questions concerning religious freedom, individual autonomy, and the state’s role in regulating controversial religious movements remain as contested as ever.

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Brainwashing theory returns under new names. Illustration: ChatGPT, 7^th July 2026.

[Editor’s note 1: “Brainwashing” was a popular term that emerged during the early Cold War to explain why some prisoners of war and political detainees appeared to adopt beliefs favored by their captors. The idea suggested that powerful psychological techniques could erase a person’s existing beliefs and replace them with new ones against their will, almost like reprogramming a machine.

Over time, however, the concept was largely discarded by mainstream psychology and cognitive science as a scientific explanation of persuasion or belief change. Researchers found little evidence for such a process, that any special, unique process existed that could fundamentally override human autonomy and completely remake a person’s personality or convictions.

Studies in psychology, sociology, and psychiatry showed that belief change is usually gradual, variable, and dependent on many factors: social pressure, isolation, coercion, rewards, threats, conformity, identity, and existing motivations. People can certainly be influenced, manipulated, indoctrinated, or coerced, but there is no scientifically demonstrated mechanism that allows a person’s mind to be completely overwritten in the dramatic way implied by “brainwashing”.

The concept came under especially heavy criticism in the 1970s–1990s during debates about new religious movements – by anti-religious activists and others often called “cults”. Some experts testified that members had been brainwashed, while other scholars argued that the theory lacked clear definitions, reliable measurements, falsifiable predictions, and strong empirical support. Courts increasingly viewed brainwashing testimony skeptically because it often could not meet scientific standards of evidence.

A major problem was that “brainwashing” lacked a clear, measurable definition. Different writers used it to describe very different phenomena, from prisoner interrogation to religious conversion to participation in controversial groups. Because it could not be reliably operationalized or tested, it failed to meet basic scientific standards. Studies of prisoners of war and members of new religious movements showed that apparent ideological conversions were often temporary, strategic, situational, or reversible rather than evidence of a mysterious mind-control process.

By the 1970s and 1980s, many psychologists, sociologists, and legal scholars concluded that brainwashing functioned more as a cultural and political metaphor than as a validated scientific theory. Courts also became increasingly skeptical of expert testimony claiming that members of new religious movements had been “brainwashed”. Today, scholars generally prefer more specific concepts – such as persuasion, coercive control, social influence, indoctrination, obedience, and group dynamics – rather than assuming the existence of a mysterious power that can completely rewrite a person’s beliefs.]

[Editor’s note 2: In Japan, the “mind-control” myth has been a powerful tool used to stigmatize and suppress new religious movements (NRMs), particularly since the 1980s. The concept suggests that NRMs manipulate or “brainwash” their followers, depriving them of free will and rational thought. This narrative gained traction after the 1995 Aum Shinrikyō sarin gas attack, when public fear of dangerous cults intensified. Although Aum was an extreme and violent exception, the incident cast suspicion on all NRMs, allowing critics, media, and the government to label diverse groups as manipulative or psychologically coercive.

The “mind-control” myth serves multiple social and political functions. It simplifies complex questions of belief, making it easier to portray converts as victims rather than as individuals exercising spiritual agency. This framing justifies legal and social intervention, including the coercive “deprogramming” of believers – sometimes involving confinement or psychological pressure to force renunciation of faith. Lawyers, ex-member groups, and certain media outlets have used the idea of mind control to construct NRMs as threats to family stability and national order, reinforcing social conformity and Japan’s preference for established, non-controversial religions such as Buddhism and Shinto.

In recent years, the myth resurfaced following the 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose attacker cited resentment toward the Family Federation. A public outrage largely created by media reignited scrutiny of NRMs, and politicians and journalists revived “mind-control” rhetoric to explain fundraising and recruitment practices. Critics argue that this framing discourages genuine religious tolerance and critical examination of Japan’s restrictive religious climate. Overall, the “mind-control” myth functions less as a scientific or psychological concept and more as a moral panic – a cultural weapon used to delegitimize minority faiths and to reaffirm mainstream social norms about religion, obedience, and the boundaries of acceptable belief.]

Related to return of brainwashing theory: Verdict Under the Shadow of “Mind Control” Myth

Also related to return of brainwashing theory: Appealing Verdict Based on Mind Control Myth

And also related to return of brainwashing theory: Dehumanizing Abuse Enabled by “Mind Control” Myth

More, related to return of brainwashing theory: Court Dismisses Religious “Mind Control” Claims

And more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Dissolution Case: Pseudoscience Shaping Verdict

Still more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Japan’s Treatment of Faith Minority Families

Yet more, related t o return of brainwashing theory: Japan Breaking Faith of Children of Believers

Evn more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Supreme Court Justice with Hostile Views

And yet more, related to return of brainwashing theory: When Media Narratives Become State Repression

And still more, related to return of brainwashing theory: The Return of Labeling Faith as Manipulation

And even more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Japan: Lawyers Accused of Wilful Dehumanization

And also related to return of brainwashing theory: Apartment Prison: Faith-Breaking in Modern Japan

And more, related to return of brainwashing theory: 4,300 Victims: Huge Ignored Deprogramming Scandal

Yet more, related to return of brainwashing theory: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

Still more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Courts: “Faith-Breaking Is Malicious Criminal Act”

Even more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Escapee Details Harrowing Faith-Breaking Trauma

Also related to return of brainwashing theory: Inhuman Government-Supported Mass Deprogramming

And also related to return of brainwashing theory: Bias: No Right to Respond for Religious Minority

More, related to return of brainwashing theory: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Politicians, Lawyers, and Criminal Faith-Breakers

Yet more, related to return of brainwashing theory: New Laws: Religious Donors as “Quasi-Incompetent”

Still more, related to return of brainwashing theory: Japan Copying Faith-Breaking Concepts of China

Even more, related to return of brainwashing theory: “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill