Protecting children from the Universal Medicine cultPosted: April 19, 2014
UM cult members have studiously avoided answering our questions about their abusive practices, and for good reason. In a recent phone call, one of them made disturbing admissions about the cult’s activities involving children, as well as Benhayon’s teachings that failure to adhere to the Way of the Livingness will result in children being raped by supernatural ‘entities’. An extract from the now defunct, password protected ‘Debasing Evil’ site reveals more defensiveness about our concerns on risks to children – a litany of lousy excuses the cult doesn’t dare make public.
No matter how much they accuse me of cyber-bullying, our concerns and questions are not going away.
NSW Child Protection Helpline 132 111
Working with Children Check update
Early this year, I called the Office of the Child Guardian to check if Serge Benhayon had a current working with children certificate. I was told he didn’t, but later learned the reason it didn’t show may have been due to transitions in the system. Apparently, Benhayon was in the process of renewing his certificate and he now has one current until 2019.
But what does the Working with Children Check mean?
It’s merely a check that people who work in child related employment have not been convicted of offences against children. Never mind if notifications have been made about grooming and other inappropriate behaviour, under the current system, predators can pass the check as long as they’ve not been convicted.
Alison Greig gloated about it in a supposedly secret ‘Debasing Evil’ response to my post on Benhayon’s inappropriate behaviour with children. Neither she nor any other devotee has the guts to air their defenses publicly:
As this was going on Esther Rockett was busy making trouble elsewhere – she made very serious allegations that Serge did not have a current Working with Children Certificate and that he had lied to the Health Care Complaints Commission about having this. Serge of course does have a current certificate and had not lied about this to anyone.
The system does not protect children from unapprehended predators.
And he did lie about Miranda not being a counsellor, and about his practices involving the touching of breasts and genitals. Not that the HCCC gives a toss.
This was accompanied by more evil innuendo’s that Serge has been engaged in inappropriate conduct with young girls and could not get such a certificate. We wrote to the Office of the Child Guardian to cut this energy and we attach this letter so you can feel the power of what was presented.
We have also included the latest blog for you to read – but we suggest that you read the letter to the Office of the Child Guardian first and the debasing of the material below before you read the blog. The blogs have a particular way of configuring the energy so that they have an intrusive effect – it is important to be really present and centred when reading it – also note if you have any reactions. The energy is there to place the seeds of doubt in the body – so it is important to be very present as you read.
Doubt is evil in the Esoteric community, which Serge says is all about ‘free will and free choice’. Doubt and questioning brings the whole pack of lies unstuck, and is prohibited.
In response the latest blogs have intensified their energy with a direct blog that suggests among other things:
· Innapropriate touching
Rockett has based this material on the manuals from courses suggesting that SEH involves touching of a woman’s vulva or anus. Each is completely incorrect and ridiculous not only from our own experiences of SEH, but also from the manuals. This is covered in the letter to the OCG.
Did they send the Office of the Child Guardian the images?
The local members of parliament have them too, and the minister for families.
Did they get a response?
Defending the indefensible
· Exposing children to sexually explicit material, including sexual violence and paedophilia
Given Rockett considers that sexual touching is shown by the manuals it is hard to know what she considers sexually explicit. What we do know is that there is no violence in Serge’s presentations and nothing that would be of more alarm than the violence and sex portrayed on prime time news and TV.
In other words, as we learned from Noddy, the Deeper Femaleness touching of genitals is considered appropriate and harmless by UM culters. So if we took Serge out of the images and replaced him with David Icke or A.J. Miller, none of them would have a problem with it.
Our blogs also quote numerous examples of Benhayon writing about and speaking explicitly of sex and sexual violence – deserving rape, underaged sexual violence, the karma of rape and murder, and the sleazy relationship workshop. Benhayon works his sick projections into teachings on ‘living gently’ and ‘everyday self-loving choices’. Again, if it was Eckhardt Tolle carrying on like that, the cult would be spamming anything that moved with letters of outrage. Serge peppers his rants with frequent references to paedophilia and other forms of sexual violence, quoted throughout our blogs, and then we have amateur social worker, Natalie Benhayon, asking kids as young as 12 about porn and sex.
Natalie Benhayon commented on the Yammer site:
I would like to share with the group that the point made and reference to myself running groups in School’s never has occurred. I have never run a group from a school, and ER’s referencing to and of this is part of the campaign of us “indoctrinating” the “unaware” into our cult. In addition all else in that point by Alison is correct, the raising of such topics with teenagers and not burying our heads in the sand. All groups were run privately and all were consented to by the individuals and their parents. February 3 at 5:55am
In her phone call to me, Noddy said the same thing about the ‘importance of talking about such topics’. However, context is everything. Running groups for kids as young as 12, with no training or qualifications, where they’re pressured into making personal confessions on drug use and sex is utterly unacceptable. The EDG notes state they took place in schools, and if they did, and we find out where, we’ll notify the education department and the personnel who enabled it will be disciplined, if not sacked.
· Using covert hypnosis in exorcistic practices and exorcism performed on a primary school student
There is no such thing as ‘covert hypnosis’. It does not exist – that is there is no psychological technique that has that effect it is the stuff of science fiction.
‘Covert hypnosis without informed consent’ is described by psychologist, Louise Samways, in her book Dangerous Persuaders. Margaret Thaler Singer devotes chapters of her book Cults in our Midst, to psychological persuasion techniques, including hypnosis techniques using ‘naturalistic trance induction‘, pioneered by hypnotherapist, Milton Erickson, who wrote volumes on it.
Exorcism conjures up the image of violence and assault as well as fear in the film ‘The Exorcist’ – what we know as ‘entity removal’ is a gentle and non intrusive technique where there is no fear at all. It has never been ‘performed on’ anyone – as we know it has always been voluntary. Nor has it ever been ‘performed’ with children – always consenting adults.
Past workshop participants have told us a different story. Alison later issued this correction:
In the interests of accuracy – I said that no child had demonstrated the entity removal. However, I have discovered today that a number of years ago some teenagers volunteered to experience entity removal – it was their choice to which their parents agreed. I can say that knowing at least one of the teenagers who is now a very beautiful young woman, that no harm was suffered in the process. ER has obviously re-written the truth into a bunch of lies to suggest it was a primary school age child
In other words, that teenager is still in the cult, and is a ‘beautiful young woman’, so it’s all fine. Ex participants have told us kids younger than teenagers have been subjected to what Alison calls ‘gentle and non intrusive’ ‘entity removal’, sent to the stage by their cult struck parents, as well as during partner work. No fear at all. Except those children have been told that entities can ‘enter’ them if they partake of anything ‘pranic’. As Noddy confirmed, if they come into contact with people who’ve consumed alcohol, they will need to ‘cleared’ lest they are raped by an entity at night time.
· Innuendos that having teenage house guests is a problem and that all the household need certificates
It is not unusual for families that have teenage or young adult kids to have their friends stay over. If there was a requirement for all parents to have Working with Children Certificates the system would collapse and also be meaningless. All the Benhayon household have current certificates (we assume Caitlin does not require one), although they would not be needed for the purposes Rockett states!
I think Alison might find I said ‘homestays’ in my posts. There’s no ‘innuendo’ in the legislation, which says a Working With Children Check is required by all members of households that provide homestays of periods of 3 weeks or more. We know Serge has had adolescent girls stay for weeks or months at a time.
· Making innuendos that Serge has engaged in grooming behaviour.
This material is particularly noxious as she lists a series of suggestions of what amounts to grooming – all intended to raise alarm – such as accidental intimate touching, sexually explicit comments that express desire to act sexually, grooming involving expressions of children having a ‘special relationship with the groomer’. She goes on to say that we as students are all being ‘groomed’ to accept this innapropriate behaviour. Of course there is not such conduct – the evil here is to raise a small seed of concern and doubt. The evil is to suggest that Serge’s obvious loving connection with children and all of us is sleazy and has an ulterior motive of being able to have sexual access to young children. We know her intent is to shut down Universal Medicine, what is more evil here is the attack on the expression of care, love and tenderness that we all naturally have for the children of friends and family. We know that Serge is not involved in grooming behaviour and that this sick thought needs to stop right here.
· A young female houseguest describing a requirement to leave the bathroom door open when showering
This preposterous lie has no foundation in fact – Esther has escalated this from innuendo in the earlier blogs to now asserting a witness to suggest she has some proof – but like her escalating claims about her own sessions with Serge, there is not truth to any of it.
UMers believe I make these claims up. If anything I’ve said over the last year and a half was false SergeCorp could have sued me for defamation and had my blogs shut down with a court order. Pervey Uncle Serge has had a number of girls stay in his home in the last 20 years. That woman and others can verify the statement.
· Innapropriate touching and erosion of personal boundaries at workshops
The material relied on here is the material from the workshop manuals – there is not truth to these claims and since we have all done the SEH courses we know that this is FALSE.
Again, there are people reading and contributing to this site who’ve done the same courses, where participants are encouraged to disclose histories of sexual abuse, followed by hands on techniques performed on erogenous zones.
· That Esther Rockett had a session involving an ‘ovarian reading’
Ms Rockett’s early reports of her sessions with Serge did not make any reference to innapropriate conduct, but her versions have become more inflammatory as time goes by. Serge has never offered a practive of ‘ovarian readings’ and never practised the ‘uterus’ or ‘ovary’ massages practised by Curtis and Natalie. In 2005 there was no such practice and Serge would have offered no more than a SEH session. Like all of Rockett’s claims this is yet another fabrication.
My account of the ovarian reading has not changed. Except perhaps that I added the ‘inflammatory’ observation that it was performed without informed consent. Again Alison is confirming that the cult thinks that an unqualified, ex bankrupt, with a history of sleazy behaviour and dishonesty, palpating my lower abdomen and fishing around for my history with men without informed consent is ‘appropriate’. Just as sending kids to stay at the same bloke’s house is appropriate, and his exorcisms on adolescent girls produce ‘beautiful young women’.
· Children present at workshops exhibiting high levels of distress
What ER is angling at here is that parents of children are bad parents for involving them in ‘cult’ activities and that we are so lost that we cannot tell if our children are distressed or what is more that we do not care. None of this is true, of course, but it serves her agenda to attack Serge and UM for dangerous and harmful practices with children and gives support to some of the detractors who are currently involved in child custody issues with their ex-partners. She is setting the scene to say that children are at risk if you are an esoteric student. She intends to generate fear and doubt…
In their suspension of doubt, Alison and the Brides of Serge don’t question why there so many detractors who are currently involved in child custody issues with their ex-partners.
The screenshot we received was cut there, but we get the picture. Our readers can make up their own minds about UM parents, and whether they place children at risk by exposing them to Benhayon’s pathology. I’d be more than happy to have that debate publicly, and I invite Serge to engage with us here on the blog, or we can do it on camera for a national current affairs program. If not, any of Serge’s supporters, Noddy, Alison, cult paediatrician Howard Chilton, the cult psychologists or any of the cult’s exemplary parents are welcome to come here and defend the above. Let’s talk about appropriate activities for children, and appropriate characters to have children stay with unaccompanied.
But until someone from UM gives us good reason to believe children are safe with these people, I will continue to assert children are at risk, and to question how Benhayon passed a working with children check when the Office of the Child Guardian has evidence of his inappropriate conduct.
I’d also like to ask the question; if cult parents don’t protect kids, and the government doesn’t either, who will?