Bitter Winter: The Tokyo High Court Unification Church Decision. 2. The Ghost of Brainwashing

B IT T E R HO ME ABOUT CHI NA v FROM THE WO RLD v I NTERVI EWS DOCUM E NTS AND TRANSLATIO NS v ABOUT EDITO RIAL BOARD TOPICS £) W I NTE R

You a re here: H ome » From the World » Op-ed s Gl oba l Sea rch

Th e To kyo H igh Co u rt U n ifi cati o n N EWS LETTE R C h u rch D eci si o n . 2. Th e G h ost of “B ra i nwa s h i ng” E m a i l a d d re ss:

Yo u r ema i l add ress by M assi m o I ntrovigne | M a r 27, 2026 | O p-ed s G loba l

A key th e m e of th e d ecisi o n i s th e d i scred ited Sign u p pse u d o-sci e ntifi c th eory that “cu lts” vi cti m ize thei r m e m be rs th rough “m e nta l ma n i pu l ati o n .” by Massimo Introvigne S U P P O RT B ITTE R WI NTE R Article 2 of 6. Read a rti cle 1 .

M OST READ Ch i n a’s N ew “I l l ega l Activity”: Provid i ng Lega l Defe nse to Ch ristia ns Twisted TV: H ow a Docu m e nta ry Be nt the Fa cts Out of Sha pe. 1 . M I SA i n Rom a n ia Th e Tokyo H igh Cou rt U n ificatio n The myth of “brainwashing. “Al elaborationfrom cartoons of the 1970s. Ch u rch Decisi o n . 1 . A Ca ricatu ra l View of the Ch u rc h I n th e fi rst a rticle of th is seri es, I p rese nted the H igh Cou rt’s m a l iciou s a n d ca ricatu ra l recon structio n of the U n ificati o n Ch u rch as a m o ney- ma ki ng Twisted TV: H ow a Docu m enta ry enterp rise rath er th an a bona fi de re l igi on . A second ce ntra l the m e of the decisi on Be nt the Facts Out of Sha pe. 3. is m enta l ma n i pu lati o n a s the ma i n tool th ro ugh wh i ch th e Ch u rch a l leged ly Th e “Victi ms” p u rsu es its a i ms. Twisted TV: H ow a Docu m enta ry Bent the Facts Out of Sha pe. 2. The H igh Cou rt decisi on reite rates th is them e across twelve d iffe rent pa ragra ph s, E nter H ugu es Gasca n lg that the U n ifi cation Ch u rc h em pl oys techn i q ues X Get Excl usive Insights II “ a nd p laci ng its “vi cti m s” “i n a state i n wh i ch it is d ifficu lt to Ch i n a’s N ew Reti re ment P la n for L dgment.” The co u rt bel ieves th ese tech n iq ues a re so D issid ents: Work, P riso n, Re pay, Ch u rch] d octri ne.” U lti mately, the free wi l l of the be l ieve r i s n ot on ly “restri cted” b ut “su pp ressed .” The co u rt states that this extre me outco m e is a ch i eved th rough LEGAL spec ia l ized tec h n iq u es of “psychol ogica l i nfl uence.” Privacy Policy The decisio n avoid s usi ng th e wo rd “bra inwash i ng” b ut la rgely re produ ces its l ogic. Th e idea th at certa i n re l igi ou s grou ps have mysterious tec h n i q u es ca pa bl e of ove rri d i ng i nd ivid ua l ch o i ce has a l o ng a n d tro u bl ed h isto ry. It has been used for ce ntu ries to d iscredit u n pop u la r m i norities, a n d m od e rn schola rsh i p consistently rejects it a s pseud osci ence. Yet, the H igh Co u rt treats it as fact, as if m entio ni ng menta l m a n i pu l ation expl a i ns why thousa nds of J a pa nese citizen s vol u nta ri ly j o i ned a nd su pported th e U n ificatio n Chu rch for decades.

The notion th at re l igiou s conversi on m ust be the resu lt of so m e h id d e n coercive force is fa r ol d e r tha n the co nte m po ra ry a nti-cu lt movement. I n th e n i neteenth centu ry, criti cs of the Latte r-d ay Sa i nts i nsisted that n o rationa l person co u l d em b race M orm on ism u n less su bjected to “mesme ric” i nfl u en ce. Long befo re that, Roma n a uthors desc ri bed ea rly Ch ristia ns as victi ms of sorce ry, wh i l e C h i nese i m peria l offic ia l s accu sed u n a uthorized rel igiou s move m e nts of usi ng b l ack m agic to e nsn a re fol lowe rs. M ed ieva l E u ropea n po le m icists recycl ed the same a ccu sations aga i nst gro u ps th ey la be led “h eretica l .” The pattern is a lways th e sa m e: when a re l igio n a p pea rs too u nfa m i l iar, too d e ma nd i ng, or too th reate n i ng to establ ished i nstituti o ns, its converts a re portrayed as d u pes rather th an age nts.

M od ern a nti-cu lt id eology repla ced th e voca bu la ry of magic with th e voca bu la ry of psyc h ology. After th e Ko rea n Wa r, Western i ntel l ige n ce age n cies beca m e fasci nated with the idea th at Co m m u n ist regi mes had deve loped tec h n iq u es to forci b ly “convert” p riso n ers. The term “brai nwas h i ng” itself was coi ned not by scienti sts but by a jou rna l ist with i ntel l igence ti es, a n d it e nte red p u b l ic d i sco u rse th rough se n sationa l i st acco u nts rath e r tha n em p i rica l resea rch . Th e U .S. gove rn ment late r acknowledged that these ea rly theories were s pecu lative a n d pol itica l ly motivated . N eve rthel ess, they provid ed a te m plate for l ate r c la i ms that new re l igi o u s movements u se si m i la r methods.

Anti-cu lt activists i n th e 1 960s a nd 1 970s revived the bra i nwa sh i ng n a rrative to

expla i n why you ng peopl e were jo i n i ng n ew re ligious m ove m e nts. Thei r theori es ga i ne d tra ctio n a mong a nxious pa rents a nd the m ed ia , bu t th ey fa red poo rly u n der lega l scruti ny. The d eci sive m o m e nt ca m e i n 1 990, wh e n a U .S. fed era l cou rt exa m i n ed the sci e ntific status of “coercive persuasi on” i n th e “Fish m a n” case . Afte r revi ewi ng exte n sive expert testi m ony, the cou rt concl u d ed that such theo ries la cked em pi rica l fou n dation . It ru l ed that “Theo ries rega rd i ng th e lacticed by re l igious cu lts a re not sufficiently esta b l is h ed to X Get Excl usive I nsights re i n fede ra l cou rts of law.” The j u dge a l so excl u d ed expe rt |e se model s, fi nd i ng th at th ey d i d not meet m i n i ma l sta nd a rds of sci e ntific rel i a b i l ity.

E u ropea n j u ris p rud e n ce reach ed s i m i la r co ncl usions . I n 20 1 0, the E u ro pea n Cou rt of H u ma n Rights noted that “there is no genera l ly a ccepted a n d scie ntific d efi n iti o n of wh at co nstitutes ‘m i nd control.’” It fu rth e r obse rved th at ma ny be havi o rs cited as evi d ence of coerci o n— i nte n se co m m itment, defe re nce to l ead ers, com m u na l l ivi ng, enth u s iastic proselytism—are com m on a cross a wide ra nge of re l igious tra d itions. Th e I ta l ia n Constitutio na l Co u rt h ad a l ready a bol is h ed th e cri me of “p lagio,” a Fasci st-era statute a ki n to “bra i nwas h i ng,” in 1 98 1 , d ecla ri ng it i ncom pati ble with both scientifi c kn owl edge a n d re l igious l i be rty.

Father Emilio Grasso, a Catholic priest, was accused of “plagio” in the case that led to the declaration of the non-constitutionality of the relevant Italian statute in 198 1.

These l ega l p reced e nts m atter beca use th ey refl ect a broa d i ntern ati o n a l recogn itio n : cl ai ms of “psychol ogi ca l ma n i p u l atio n” i n rel igi ous contexts a re too vague, too ideol ogical ly l oa ded, a n d too easi ly a bused to serve as a ba si s fo r state i nte rve ntio n . They a l l ow cou rts to su bstitute thei r own va l u e j u dgments fo r the l ived expe rie n ces of bel ievers. They a lso create a d a ngerous asym metry: m a i nstrea m rel igions a re assu m ed to attract fo l lowers th rough legiti mate pe rsuasi o n, wh i l e m i n o rity rel igio n s a re p resu med gu i lty of m an i pu lati on u n less

X Get Excl usive I nsights d ec ision fa l l s sq ua re ly i nto th is pattern . It a sserts th at the Is “psych ologica l i nfl u ence.” Sti l l , it n ever defi nes th e te rm, neve r exp la i ns how su c h i nfl u ence d iffers fro m o rd i na ry re l igi ou s exh o rtation , and neve r d e m on strates that me m bers we re d ep rived of thei r ca pa city to choose . I nstead, it rel ies on the assu m ption—com m o n i n anti-cu lt d iscou rse—that i ntense rel igiou s com m itm e nt is i n h e re ntly s u sp icious. Wh e n b e l ieve rs d o n ate ge nerously, the cou rt i nte rprets th is not a s a n expression of fa ith bu t as evi d e n ce of m a ni pu l ation . Whe n they accept theo logi ca l teach i ngs a bo ut sacrifice, p rovi dence, ka rma, or th e a ncestors, the cou rt treats th ese be l iefs as too ls of coercio n rath e r tha n a s si ncere convictions.

Th is a p p roach is dee ply prob lemati c. Al l re l igions encou rage givi ng, ofte n i n strong te rms. M a ny em phasize the spi ritua l va l u e of sa c rifi ce, the i m porta nce of su pporti ng th e com mu n ity, o r the mora l d uty to co ntri bute to a la rge r m issi o n . If su ch exho rtati ons a re rei nte rp reted as “psych o logi ca l i nfl u e n ce,” th e n th e bou n da ry betwee n legiti mate re l igio n a n d i l l i cit ma n i pu lati o n beco mes i m poss i ble to d raw. Th e H igh Cou rt’s reason i ng wo u ld a p ply eq u a l ly to P rotesta nt tith i ng, Catho l ic a ppea l s fo r contri b uti ng to the Vati ca n’s “Peter’s Pe nce,” B u d d h ist fu nd rais i ng for te m p le construction, or Shi nto req uests fo r offeri ngs. The d iffe re n ce l i es n ot i n the m eth od s b ut i n th e eva l uato r’s a p p rova l or d isa pp rova l of the u nde rlyi ng theo logy.

M oreover, the co u rt’s a n alysis igno res the most basi c p ri nci ple of re l igious freed om : ad u lts a re e ntitled to m a ke co m m itme nts th at othe rs m ay fi n d excessive, i rrati o nal, or i ncom p re he nsi b le. The state d oes not h ave th e a uthority to decla re that certa i n bel iefs a re too stra nge to be si nce re ly h eld, o r that certa i n forms of devotion a re i ncom pati bl e with free wi l l . To d o so is to treat devotees of rel igi ou s m i n o riti es as i n he rently l ess ca pa b le of age ncy th a n m e m bers of m ajo rity fa iths.

The H igh Cou rt’s rel ia nce on “psychological i nfl uence” th us re presents a ste p bac kwa rd, revivi ng a d iscred ited concept i n both a ca dem ic a nd l ega l ci rcles fo r d ecad es. It a l l ows the co u rt to pathologize rel igiou s co m m itme nt, rei nte rpret vol u nta ry acts as coe rced, a n d j u stify extreme state i ntervention based on

specu l a tive, u nsuei i u i ic assu mp tions, i n uoi ng su, i l i i s ks u nuei r n i n i ng u ie ver y fou ndations of freedo m of rel igi on or be l i ef i n Ja pa n .

A l ega l system co m m itted to co nstitutiona l pri nci ples shou ld not re ly o n theo ries that cou rts el sewh ere have rejected as pseu doscience. The Tokyo H igh Court’s d ecision, by em braci ng the la nguage of “psycho logi ca l i nfl u e nce,” crosses a l i ne that d e m ocratic soci eties have long recognized as da ngerous. The conseq uences wi l l exte n d fa r beyond the U nifi cation Ch u rch u n l ess this reason i ng is cha l l enged .

X Get Excl usive I nsights el igio us Li berty, U n ifi cation Ch u rc h

M a ssi m o I ntrovign e M assi m o I ntrovign e (born J u n e 1 4, 1 955 i n Rom e) is a n Ita l ia n socio logist of rel igions. H e i s the fou nd e r a nd m a nagi ng d i rector of the Center fo r Stud ies o n N ew Re l igi ons (C E S N U R), a n i nte rnationa l netwo rk of sch olars who stu dy new rel igious movements. I ntrovigne is the a uth o r of so m e 70 boo ks a nd m ore th a n 1 00 a rticl es i n the fi e l d of sociol ogy of rel igi o n . H e was the ma i n a uthor of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia ( E n cycloped ia of Rel igi o ns i n Ita ly). H e is a me m ber of th e ed ito ri a l board for the I nte rd isc i p l i na ry l ou rna l of Resea rch o n Re l igi o n and of the executive boa rd of U n ive rsity of Ca l iforn i a Press’ N ova Re l igio. Fro m Ja n u a ry 5 to Dece m be r 3 1 , 20 1 1 , he h as served as th e “ Re presentative o n com bati ng raci sm, xenoph ob ia a nd d iscri m i n ation, with a specia l focu s on d iscri m i nation aga i nst Ch risti ans and mem bers of othe r rel igi o ns” of the O rga n i zati on for Secu rity a nd Co-operati o n i n Eu rope (OSCE). From 20 1 2 to 20 1 5 he served as cha i rperson of the O bse rvato ry of Re l igious Li berty, i nstituted by the Ita l ia n M i nistry of Foreign Affa i rs i n ord e r to mon itor probl e ms of rel igi ous l i berty o n a wo rl dwide sca l e .

bqs sdbq B O H D Ei n

R EA D M O R E

Twi sted TV: H ow a Twisted TV: H ow a Twisted TV: H ow a Docu m enta ry Be nt th e Docu me nta ry Be nt the Docu m e nta ry Be nt th e Fa cts O ut of S h a pe. 4. Fa cts O ut of S ha p e . 3. Th e Facts O ut of S ha pe. 2. E nter E ithe r “Victi m s” of ‘Victi ms” H ugu es G asca n “B ra i nwash ed” M a r 24, 2026 M a r 23, 2026 M a r 25, 2 026

Via Co nfienza 1 9 1 0 1 2 1 - Tori no Italy i nfo@b itterwi nter.org Don a te

5 X Get Excl usive I nsights N oti ce at co l l ecti o n Yo u r P riva cy C ho i ces