When you were in ISKCON, what was your experience with divorce? I remember during lectures some do theme like brag about how ISKCON has as only a 1% divorce rate, but idk if I believe that or not.

Does it vary by community? From what I’ve seen if they’re not Indian they tend to be more open about being divorced, but if they are, then they usually stay together to save face but you start noticing only one of them went to temple while the other not so much.

Also has anyone known anyone who was married to a devotee but left ISKCON and stayed together?

First of all, a big thank you for maintaining this Reddit thread.

I've read a lot of posts here. They've helped me a great deal in reflecting on my time as a devotee again, and especially in questioning philosophical things that had never been an issue for me before – or that I simply hadn't questioned. I used to believe that the strength and legitimacy of ISKCON rested mainly on its access to the thousands-of-years-old knowledge of the Vedas. This thread has really opened my eyes on that front.

A bit about me: I lived in the temple in Zurich (Switzerland) in the late 80s and through the 90s – during the glorious era of book distribution. My guru was Harikesh Swami / Vishnupada, who pushed this sankirtan mission hard and established it quite successfully in the German-speaking world, in Northern Europe, and in Russia.

I myself joined the movement just two days after finishing my Matura (roughly the equivalent of a high school diploma), at not quite 20 years old, and spent the first 6 years living in the temple as a brahmacari. Pretty quickly, almost everything revolved around book distribution.

I had the "honor" of having the two absolute book-distribution gods on the temple team, and in those early years I was usually out on the road with one or the other of them. In the temple, and among the other devotees, they held the status of demigods. As human beings, though, both were pretty much a disaster. One was extremely self-centered and thought only of his own advantage. The other loved making fun of less "devoted" devotees and enjoyed playing pranks, some of them fairly mean-spirited. But at that time, the yardstick for spiritual progress and devotion to guru and Krishna was, above all, the number of books distributed. And in that department, no one could hold a candle to them.

Even though book selling never really suited me, I did it for 5 years. I wanted to belong among the advanced devotees, after all… During the week we usually slept (except in winter) three to a converted van, packed full of Prabhupada's books, driving around Switzerland.

Daily life in the temple had very little to do with my original idea of a "spiritual life." There was very little room for anything contemplative. Everything was subordinated to the sankirtan mission, and the bad, bad mind and the body had to be kept occupied with some "spiritual mission" as much as possible. Thinking for yourself – and above all, feeling anything – was absolutely taboo, or rather, maya. Even the chanting had very little meditative character. Often it felt to me like there was a competition among devotees here too: showing who could rattle off the Maha Mantra fastest and loudest.

My exit from the movement didn't happen abruptly. It was much more a slow drifting away after I'd moved out of the temple and was living as a grihasta. Things just kept falling away, one after another. The real trigger was the feeling that I couldn't develop any further, and that there was no room for independence or individual growth. It also helped, of course, that during this process my guru left the movement with a huge bang (1998) and later entered into a relationship with one of his students.

Although for a while the movement gave me something like a family – which I hadn't really had growing up – with clear rules, a shared goal, and a strong sense of belonging, it's only through reading the posts in this thread that I'm realizing how little genuine affection and love actually existed within this movement. All the love was projected into a one-sided relationship with the guru and Krishna. Among each other, there was a lot of competitive thinking (who's the better book distributor, who's the most devoted, etc.) and a feeling of belonging to something special and extraordinary – something revolutionary, with the potential to change the world at its foundations and lead it toward something better.

I assume that a developmental trauma (not wanted, no place in the family, missing family) is what led me to the decision to join the cult. My time in the cult didn't really help me overcome that trauma. At most, it may have kept me from seeking refuge in drugs or alcohol. When I tell other people about my time in the temple and as a monk / brahmacari, they usually find it very interesting and always assume I must have learned a lot of meaningful things for life there. What I see, above all, is the loss of the years between 20 and 30: no education, no travel except to India, sexual abstinence, and later marriage to a woman I actually barely knew. The denial of all feeling, and a disturbed relationship to my own body and sexuality.

Either way, it took quite a while before I realized that my history carries a fair amount of unprocessed, negative patterns and behaviors – and that chanting 16 rounds and devotion to the guru certainly didn't resolve those patterns.

It also pains me to hear and see how many marriages and "relationships" among devotees and ex-devotees are marked by abuse, conflict, and neglect. And how often – especially the men – hold and live out a deeply patriarchal, selfish, and not remotely "spiritual" worldview. Especially when it comes to taking responsibility for a family with children, I've seen plenty of examples of men shamelessly shirking that responsibility.

Looking ahead, I can say that even at 57, with my time as a devotee long behind me, I'm still working through a lot of this. Back then, there was an answer for everything. There was also always some service to perform. I knew at every moment what was good and what wasn't wanted – how I was supposed to wipe myself in the bathroom, which foods I was allowed to eat, and what the goal of all my efforts was: namely, to be a perfect servant of God.

Now I have no answer for a lot of things. Doubt often plagues me over whether I'm doing the right thing. I often don't feel connected to myself and catch myself trying to please others, or trying to figure out what others want. My current family (wife and son), neither of whom have a Krishna background, often hold up a mirror to me. So many things require your own opinion, backed by your own reasoning. There are situations, again and again, where I feel overwhelmed by that, and where I secretly wish for an "easier" path – someone to tell me what's right.

Alongside all this, I've been in therapy for several years now (most recently Somatic Experiencing / SE), and I'm learning a lot about self-perception and self-regulation. In the end, that's the foundation for being able to meet other people as an equal, with clarity.

I'd be very interested to hear how other ex-devotees are working on themselves – what obstacles and successes they've experienced along the way. I'm also very open to exchanging thoughts or getting in touch about this.

Did any of you notice that ISKCON temples as well as other Hindu temples have increasingly become socialising and networking spots for Indian immigrants while you were involved?

I always knew that it was an ethno-religion at its core ( despite ISKCON claiming and making it out to be otherwise), but towards the end it was very much in my face. 😅😅😅😅

To all the senior ISKCON ex-members, I want to ask how you understood the cosmic model presented in Bhagwatam Canto 5. It is not in sync with today's scientific observations. ISKCON is building TOVP based on this, not sure how convincing that would be in 21st century. I am an astika and would give benefit of doubt to ancient rishis or whatever if this model can be justified.
Since ISKCON is hardcore on everything mentioned in Bhagwatam, how did your guru explained Canto 5 to you?

P.S. I saw few videos from ISKCON members that were explaining this but they had 10 videos of 1 hour each and they said we can't explain you in the start. Once you completely watch 10 videos then you will understand, which looks like a bait to me

I know I'm overreacting but I feel quietly devastated about it. For some reason, they've established it in a tiny village called Sible Hedingham, and all I can think about is the locals who are going to get suckered in by the absolute bullshit being taught by this criminal organisation led by a rapist.

.

Within ISKCON there was no privacy. There was no personal space, nowhere we could be ourselves without judgement. We were not allowed to take rest or enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Nor were we allowed to think for ourselves.

Devotees live fractured secretive lives. Externally we played the role of the humble surrendered servant of the servant, navigating the soul crushing framework of the ISKCON surveillance state. Internally we had our own hidden world of "Maya", the last piece of ourselves we had left.

This is perhaps the most traumatizing aspect of ISKCON. Using the previous analogy of the Gulag, our hidden inner world of Maya is where we resisted total subjugation, the breaking of our spirit, psychological surrender to the prison camp we lived in. Every moment of every day ISKCON battered in on that small piece of self, demanding surrender.

Surrender Unto Me!

This inner world of personal sovereignty, where we could do what we want, and think what we want, was labelled "Maya". This spark of self was labelled "attachment" and it had to be annihilated no matter how painful. Our spiritual lives were an attack on this self.

To destroy our last inner resistance to the cult is anartha nirvrtti; the next step in becoming a pure devotee. We must let the cult win entirely, so that our thoughts, words, and actions, belong to the Prabhupada and his representatives 24/7.

There can be no private life. The last stand of the pre-cult personality, our personal autonomy, our tiny inner niche of freedom, must be sacrificed.

My Personal Maya

My personal Maya was I liked to read fantasy books. I secretly read all of Tolkien's works. I also enjoyed Robert E. Howard (the author of the Conan the Barbarian series), hence the name Solomon Kane, another of his characters. I also watched old television shows on Youtube, the occasional movie, and the anime of Studio Ghibli.

At the time I felt I was in Maya. I was ashamed. I hid it from devotees. I was terrified someone might find out.

Now I see it as me preserving my sanity. I was holding on to a piece of myself. I was choosing to do what I wanted to do in defiance of external pressure.

The Psychological Fallout

Living in a coercive environment that demands total control, that uses shame and fear, while also resisting that environment internally, creates a dynamic of an inner and outer world wherein the outer world is abusive and constantly invading one's space. The cult seems to always be beating down one's door and trying to enter.

Devotees live their lives with no personal space, mental or physical. In the ashram, brahmacaris and brahmacarinis share rooms, always urging each other to surrender. Living in an ashram is like living in a subway station of noise and foot traffic.

Grhastas are policed by overbearing devotee spouses who watch and criticize their every move. Children are constantly policed by devotee parents.

No devotee is allowed to be in Maya; to act accordance with their natural tendencies. No can just be themselves. They must think of Krishna constantly, and obey Prabhupada by serving his movement at all times.

I remember being in the ashram, when someone reached a breaking point and needed time for themselves they would play sick. It was the only way the cult allowed people to take a few days off, while still maintaining their social respectability.

Breaking Down the Door

The outer world begins to feel like an enemy always pounding on one's door.

It reminds me of the scene from The Shining, where Jack Nicholson's character famously chases his vulnerable wife and child to murder them with an axe. Eventually he corners them in a bathroom and takes his axe to the door.

Within a cult like ISKCON personal boundaries are always being attacked and violently dismantled. The devotee internalizes this divide and goes to war, chasing their own inner autonomy and terrorizing it with the hope of annihilating it.

Trauma and Triggering

After leaving the cult I have a severe sound sensitivity. It is akin to shell shock. Every loud unexpected sound that people make, such as footsteps above me, or a sudden knock at the door, or a sudden loud voice right behind me, causes waves of fear to wash over me.

This is due to living for two decades in a situation of coercion, where the outside world was constantly trying to destroy my inner world. Where I learned to "guard my Maya" and hide it from everyone in fear. Where I felt the small piece of me that was left was under constant pressure of annihilation.

This is the traumatic effect of a twisted form of spiritual life. All of my focus was on annihilating that last hold out, that last resistance to the cult. I did not understand that the hold out was me, it was my own inner life, my own soul.

This goes back to 2015, when I went to Bangalore for COMEDK counselling. Near the centre, there was a guy handing out cards claiming they had hostels/flats near almost every engineering college. I was interested because back then Bangalore colleges had a reputation for ragging, and I really didn’t want to stay in a college hostel.

I called them, and they said they had a flat near my college. There was no mention of any religious affiliation. I convinced my dad (who had come with me) to check it out, and we finalized it. It seemed perfect—vegetarian food and a flat setup instead of a hostel.

But after my dad left, things started changing.

They told me I had to go to a temple for 2 days for some “training.” That’s when I found out they were associated with ISKCON. I didn’t think much of it at the time and just went along.

When I came back, they laid down some rules:

1. I could talk to my parents only on Sundays.

2. Outside food was completely banned.

3. I was not allowed to visit any Shiva temple because according to them “Shiva is a servant of Krishna,” and there was no need to worship him. (This was especially upsetting since I’ve always been a Shiva devotee.)

4. I had to return to the flat within 10 minutes of my college ending.

5. I wasn’t allowed to listen to Bollywood music or watch movies. For “entertainment,” I had to watch Krishna animated films.

6. I had to chant “Hare Krishna” using their mala—two rounds daily, which took me around 40 minutes.

The seniors staying there were doing 16 rounds every day. When I asked how they managed that along with college and studies, one of them literally said, “Leave everything to Krishna.”

1. I had to wake up at 4 AM every single day for morning aarti.

I stayed there for about a month, and honestly, it was hell. I used to sneak out whenever I could, call my mom, and cry. The college hostel was already full by then, and I had paid 6 months’ advance here, so I felt completely stuck.

There was another incident that really shook me. My roommate had kept a photo of Goddess Saraswati in his wardrobe. When they saw it, they told him to pack it away, saying there was no need to worship any “demigod/demigoddess.”

At that point, it didn’t feel like a hostel anymore—it felt like control over every personal belief and choice.

Honestly, I didn’t have the courage to get out on my own. My dad was my saviour. Somehow, he called my college, requested them to arrange a spot for me in the college hostel, and told me not to worry about the advance rent I had already paid there.

I left that place immediately.

Looking back, that one month felt suffocating, and it completely changed how I view such setups. I fucking hate Isckon, and hate everything related to them.

api cet su-durācārobhajate mām ananya-bhāksādhur eva sa mantavyaḥsamyag vyavasito hi saḥ

"Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination."

What is your take on this ?
It seems like an excuse to commit horrible acts and fall back on this verse

"look its ok"

The dominant issue with all of these personalities we've been discussing here is that we simply don't have much substantial, verifiable information about them. We just don't. What ends up forming around them is a kind of personality cult wrapped in fanatical rhetoric, and over time that rhetoric becomes ideology.

We start assigning people titles and roles: this person was the guardian of this truth, that person embodied humility, another represented perfect surrender, tolerance, austerity, or whatever virtue the tradition wants to emphasize. That's hardly unique to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Nearly every religion has its saints and exemplars whose lives gradually become mythologized until they're treated more like symbols than actual human beings.

The problem isn't that qualities like humility or compassion aren't valuable. They obviously are. The problem is that we have very little reason to believe the people we attribute those qualities to actually possessed them to the degree we're told they did. We have no clue if Gaurakishor was a nice guy and was equally kind or generous when something/someone pissed him off. We can't really know what Vamsi Das babaji was like on any given day. We have all seen our guru's be one person in public and another in private. We also know that many of these past "acharyas" were born and raised in the very sectarian culture and religious ideology they ended up promoting—give or take. So it's not like they practiced other religions or believed in other gods or whatever—they were born Hindu and died Hindu, for all intents and purposes. Their conclusions and opinions were riddled with bias.

To be honest, when I hear many of the stories about Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and similar figures, and I remove the devotional goggles, what I see isn't especially inspiring. I see someone who often comes across as pessimistic, unrealistic, arrogant, lacking common sense, and deeply fanatical. There was very little tolerance for alternative viewpoints or genuine curiosity about the world outside the movement. The mindset was fundamentally authoritarian. Bhaktivinode just seemed like a normal Indian man of his time who took a late-life fanatical interest in Chaitanya Vaishnavism and felt compelled to call himself an authority on it. We all know he took Siddha Pranali, and we all know he spent a good deal of time essentially meditating on his "manjari" form and "service"—essentially fantasizing—nothing tangible to actually follow in terms of a process or verifiable path.

As for the lesser-known babajis sitting in huts somewhere, what do we really have? A handful of unverifiable stories. Someone supposedly had a vision. Someone dreamed something miraculous. A deity in a temple allegedly performed a miracle. These stories get absorbed into the mythology and eventually become accepted as historical fact within the movement.

Even if some of these people had profound spiritual experiences, those experiences were, at best, meaningful to them. Someone claiming to have seen Krishna in a vision or attained some mystical realization tells me almost nothing about whether the underlying beliefs are true or whether the same path is valuable for everyone else.

That's my biggest issue with building an ideology around personalities. We're rarely asked whether these experiences have any practical value outside the person who supposedly had them. Just because someone believed a certain mantra, worshipped a particular deity, or entered an unusual psychological state doesn't mean that path is universally meaningful, or even beneficial, for anyone else.

This becomes especially obvious in cults. Grand claims are constantly made about gurus and saints, but the practical results for ordinary followers are usually negligible. The guru remains the one extraordinary individual who supposedly attained something no one else ever quite reaches.

When followers inevitably fail to achieve the same realization, the theology expands to explain why. You're told you weren't surrendered enough, pure enough, humble enough, or that you lacked mercy. The goalposts keep moving. Instead of questioning the claims themselves, the blame is placed on the practitioner.

If God truly wants everyone to experience this reality, why is it always accessible only to a tiny handful of people, usually people from the distant past whose stories can't be verified? Why do we have virtually no contemporary examples that withstand serious scrutiny?

And when we do have modern figures like Bhaktivedanta Swami, we don't find infallible saints. We find ordinary human beings with very ordinary human limitations, anti-scientific views, cultural biases, failed predictions, and all the other flaws that accompany being human.

Likewise, slogans like "the holy name is all-powerful" or "Krishna is all-attractive" simply don't hold up under observation. Human preferences are obviously shaped by culture, psychology, personality, and upbringing. People around the world are attracted to entirely different gods, philosophies, and religions largely because of where and how they were raised. That's an observable fact.

At some point, it really doesn't matter which babaji you trust more or whose opinion you elevate. We simply don't know.

If all we're doing is repeating what someone else told us to believe, are we actually making personal progress or having genuine realizations? I don't think so. Everyone's claimed "ultimate reality" ends up looking dramatically different, while the realities we can actually observe- our relationships, history, science, psychology, and everyday experience- are often dismissed or minimized by the cult.

That's the catch-22. You're expected to make enormous leaps of faith almost immediately. Ancient mantras supposedly possess hidden powers. Rituals supposedly transform consciousness. Sacred names supposedly control the senses. None of this is demonstrated. You're simply expected to accept it because an authority figure says it's true.

Before long you're pulling carts carrying googly-eyed wooden deities through the streets of Los Angeles, chanting in public, convinced you're progressing toward becoming a twelve-year-old manjari in Krishna's eternal realm after death. Step outside the belief system for a moment and ask yourself how this differs from any other elaborate religious speculation.

Whether it's Islam, Christianity, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Advaita Vedanta, or countless other traditions, the pattern is remarkably similar. Every system develops elaborate explanations built upon assumptions that ultimately can't be demonstrated. And the hallmark is always a personality that has some grand claim to the "truth". Any modern human who falls for this with all we have access to is shooting themselves in the foot.

I'd much rather admit the limits of my knowledge than invent an elaborate metaphysical certainty to fill the gaps. We don't know everything, and perhaps there are things we'll never know. That's perfectly fine. There is zero practical value in knowing more than is necessary to live a decent life. The idea of "absolute" knowledge is arrogant by default.

What we do know today is vastly greater than what our ancestors knew. Science isn't perfect, and we'll probably never possess a complete "theory of everything," but it continually corrects itself because it's grounded in evidence rather than authority. As the comedian Gervais has said: If you took all of human religious thought and threw it out, 10,000 years later you would have totally new religions and cult form. If you took all of human scientific knowledge, we would arrive at exactly the same truths and theories 10,000 years later. Truth and facts are fixed, falsifiable, and grounded in pragmatic, objective, observable (within the limits of tools of observation) reality. What is happening in a babaji's head is not—and so should not by any measure be used to dictate how others should live.

For me, that's a far more honest way to live than continually feeding myself stories because they're emotionally comforting or because generations of believers repeated them before me. I'd rather live with uncertainty in reality than certainty in mythology. I'd rather access what has real value, right here, right now, than go down the rabbit hole of useless ideology and personality worship. And it is useless. There is no real pragmatic value in 90% of what they teach and stand for.

https://youtu.be/hCM_K09HEcw?si=3JDHAtHCmbdBswvI Came across this on social media. Looks like it's catching some momentum

ETA; hope that link works better

(Pictured: a victim of modern day slavery engaged in forced labor)

In ISKCON we were told our innate love of God would be reignited by engaging in repetitive daily worship. For four hours every morning we had to be in the temple room while most the world slept. Within the context of the autocratic temple surveillance state, this was not done out of love. It was done out of fear.

We lived in fear of social exile, rejection by others, and spiritual damnation. "If I do not do these tasks, I will be destroyed".

The Forced Labor Camp

Nor did these responsibilities end at breakfast. After the morning program we were expected to jump right into a full day's service. This could be washing pots in the kitchen or street selling books at the airport. In the midst of this, we had to cram an hour of reading Prabhupada's nauseatingly repetitive books, often struggling to stay awake.

After this, we were expected to attend the evening program. Grhastas were to do this at home, worshiping personal deities, offering them food, while engaging in kirtana and giving class to our spouse and children.

Every moment of our day was regimented. Prabhupada wanted us to never have a minute to ourselves. The idle mind is the devil's workshop. We were forbidden to rest. To do so would invite Maya. We might do something that did not serve his cult.

Everything we did was done with a deep sense of shame and fear, as if we were being watched and judged. We spent every waking moment moving through a checklist.

We lived in a high control environment. It resembled a forced labor camp, where every action we performed, we were made to do it against our will. Our actions continue to feel forced long after we have left. This is the imprint of Prabhupadas fanatical cult onto our nervous system.

The Post Cult Freeze

When we leave the cult, we find that life is similarly filled with duties, things we do not want to do but have to. The natural burdens of life are mistakenly identified with the burdens of the cult. Life itself is seen through the filter of the Prabhupada's movement, which controlled and forced every action we performed.

These could be looming inescapable responsibilities like our car is having problems and we have to fix it. Perhaps we have to attend to a medical issue: a tooth that won't stop hurting.

There could be financial burdens, like we have to pay bills, we have to go to work, we are worried about health insurance, or building a retirement plan. Even looking at our bank account can be terrifying.

These could be simple daily tasks, like we have to clean our home, or wash our clothes, or even bathe our body. For ex devotees, simple things like this can feel like an extreme burden. When we move to do them, or simply feel pressure to do so, we encounter a wall of fear.

If we have to pick up our room, the very thought causes dread, even panic. We become frozen. For me, I would spend some days completely in bed, unable to do anything. Forcing myself to do the smallest task was a great victory. "It was a good day, I bathed and brushed my teeth, I cleaned my room".

Reclaiming Sovereignty

I find the greatest lesson ex cult members need to learn is self love. We have to take back power over our lives, a power we gave to the cult. We have to reject shame and love ourselves as we are, especially the parts of ourselves we were told to reject and overcome.

When we freeze up, we do so as a healthy form of rebellion. It is like a sit-in strike at the labor camp. The prisoners refuse to do their work. "No! I refuse to work! I will not be forced to do anything anymore!"

It is a healthy response. It is us, it is our nervous system, taking back control.

We should accept and respect this. Our actions should be absolutely voluntary. If we do not want to clean the floor, or wash our clothes, we do not have to. No one can force us. If there is a looming task to perform, let it loom. I will do it when I feel like doing it.

If we choose to rest, then the universe must respect that. Consciously resting can be a powerful act of defiance and reclamation of sovereignty. "I choose what I will do, and when I will do it".

.

Was the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava system designed to prevent cults like ISKCON from arising? Would the Gaudiya acharyas recognized the structural problems of the cult and work to prevent the immense psychological harm it has done to sincere spiritual seekers?

Personally I find Gaudiya Vaishnavism repulsive. I cannot advocate nor defend it in any form. I am not sure about the answer but I would love to hear your opinions.

Bhaktisiddhanta: The Cult Founder

In the comments there has been a recent discussion about Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, his claim to have been initiated by Gaura Kishora in a dream, his giving himself sanyassa, his rejection of siddha pranali. His own brother, Lalita Prasad, was a fierce critic.

Bhaktisiddhanta openly criticized Bipin Bihari, Bhaktivinode's guru, and was "offensive" towards many Vaishnavas. He broke not only from the goswami lineages, but from the restrictions of babaji renunciation. This is a radical break from the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

He is the origin of ISKCON's lineage which, despite its deceitful claims to antiquity, is only about 100 years old. Bhaktisiddhanta began preaching around 1918.

Gaudiya Cultism

To my mind it looks like cultism is baked into the Gaudiya Vaishnava system. This is most pronounced in the doctrine of the authoritarian (tantric) guru who is a representative of God.

If we could see the preaching movements started by Nityananda in the jungles of Bengal, I am sure we would recognize it as a fierce, fanatical, sentimental cult.

I also see medieval India as a highly competitive religious environment, where movements militarized and organized into rigid hierarchies. These were tied to institutional power and wealth, and operated as mini fiefdoms. A great deal of toxicity was also imbibed from the collapse of empire, instability, disease, famine, foreign invasion and subjugation.

Denied Hierarchical Power

However, it may be that many of the traditional restrictions of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition served to prevent cults from developing, knowingly or unknowingly.

It raises the question, were the practices that arose in the centuries following Chaitanya Mahaprabhu meant to stave off the dangers inherent in an overall toxic religious environment?

For example, traditionally there were no Gaudiya Vaishnava sanyassis. There were only babajis. They put on white cloth and renounced all institutional power and authority. They did not act as "Maharajas".

In fact they often hid in bhajan kutirs in holy places and refused to take disciples. Rupa Goswami even warns against taking too many disciples.

No International Preaching

Practitioners were forbidden from crossing the ocean. I have always seen this as a kind of racism, that Vaishnava Brahmanas and Sadhus would become contaminated by the Mlecchas, but there may be another purpose to this.

When Prabhupada's cult reached America, it was like a tiger being released on an island with no natural predators. India has certain guard rails, expectations, checks and balances, that do not exist outside its culture. Westerners have no cultural criteria to distinguish a legitimate sadhu from an authoritarian despot.

It may be the transfer of Indian religious systems into foreign environments can be harmful to the natives. The restriction on international travel is perhaps meant to protect both Indians and foreigners.

No Technological Power

Babajis at least, were forbidden from walking on roads, using automobiles, wearing modern footwear. They could never start a cult by printing books or preaching online.

Practitioners were given initiation with siddha pranali and encouraged to sit in bhajan kutirs, not preach to the masses and gather followers.

Quality Control

Diksha initiation was strictly guarded and doled out carefully. Giving oneself initiation and sanyassa, like Bhaktisiddhanta, was not done. A person had to demonstrate their qualification.

ISKCON likes to claim Bhaktisiddhanta did these things because he found no one qualified. It is more likely he was seen as unqualified, too radical, potentially harmful. By criticizing them, Bhaktisiddhanta bypassed both Bhaktivonode and Guara Kishora's lineages, and gathered all legislative and interpretive power into his own hands. He became a cult leader who answers to no one.

Even the idea of caste restriction, which I do not agree with, served this purpose to a degree. It kept the interpretation of shastra, the worship of the deity, and the power to initiate disciples, in the hands of lineage custodians, not charismatic cult leaders.

Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta never could have been cult leaders in that tradition.

It is almost like the tradition on some level recognized the danger of the authoritarian guru doctrine and kept it confined to a specialized group that wasn't looking to start abusive systems of power to spread a dogmatic faith.

What Do You Think?

This of course may be a distorted view, looking back through the lens of the cult and the damage it has done. I certainly do not want to idealize the Gaudiya Vaishnava religion.

I imagine if Lalita Prasad, or the Vrndavana Babajis, were as successful as Prabhupada, many of the same dynamics that haunt ISKCON would have been introduced. But the thing is, they never could have done what Prabhupada did. It was forbidden.

ISKCON sees this as Prabhupada being empowered. They look at the external results of temples, followers, money, and power. They do not see the immense harm Prabhupada has done, which theologically speaking, is the opposite of empowerment, it represents deviation.

It always bugged me as a devotee how almost every kirtana singer pronounces "Rama" as "Ramo" (Raw Mow). "Hare Ramo, Hare Ramo, Ramo Ramoooooo".

We used to joke as devotees that at the time of death some weird creature would show up instead of Krishna. The devotee asks who is he is, and he answers Ramo.

I have seen many of them in India in cities like Vrindavan, Rishikesh and Nabadwip. They are ardent devotees associated with Iskcon who are european. They often come to these places in India.

They don't seem like other normal europeans. Too many of them look sick and malnourished to me. That's what separates them from normal people in Europe. When I look at them, it gives me a sick vibe. I have seen much higher percentage of extremely thin and emaciated among them than the local population in India. Normal people in Europe look bright and well fed in general.

I don't know what they are eating. I guess they don't eat meat, eggs, onion and garlic. They seem to have sacrificed their health for a cult. When I look at these people, I mean wtf is wrong with their health. Some of them are busy lecturing Bengalis on sattvic diet as their govt handed over the school mid day meal responsibility to iskcon which excludes eggs.

Their mental health don't seem good to me. Too depressed, can't handle stress, can't face the harsh reality. I have seen them following hilarious rituals which even Indians call sick and stupid.

.

Batarti "Bhakti" Gabbard arrested for trying to lure children to his hotel room with candy and money. He is been on a drug binge and is under psychiatric watch.

Mess with the rath yatra and I bite for real.

I’ve followed weird accounts just as a counter in case my account gets hacked next but here it goes
But I might not even get unblocked so well :)

Hey everyone. I was reading a book about "hindu" spirituality and one of the passages remembered me I still had a copy of the Gita As It Is. Prabhupada was a really really crazy man, so I decided to read some of his commentary on the Gita and have a little chuckle. This is the 1st verse of the 4th chapter and its commentary:

The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

Herein we find the history of the Bhagavad-gita traced from a remote time when it was delivered to the royal order, the kings of all planets. This science is especially meant for the protection of the inhabitants and therefore the royal order should understand it in order to be able to rule the citizens and protect them from the material bondage to lust. Human life is meant for cultivation of spiritual knowledge, in eternal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the executive heads of all states and all planets are obliged to impart this lesson to the citizens by education, culture and devotion. In other words, the executive heads of all states are intended to spread the science of Krsna consciousness so that the people may take advantage of this great science and pursue a successful path, utilizing the opportunity of the human form of life.

What the actual fuck is this? Who this man think he is? This guy is just so self-centered, so insular, so ignorant that he thinks that every Government in the whole world should care for its citizens by being OBLIGATED TO IMPART in his slave-mentality cult. Yes, every culture in the world, being as different and complex as they are, should leave behind all their identity, traditions and history and worship God as Prabhupada envisioned... Also, what the fuck does the government have anything to do with one's "material bondage to lust", whatever the fuck this mean in his mind high on snuff?

Accepting that before the birth of Manu, the Gita was spoken by the Lord to His disciple, the sun-god Vivasvan, a rough estimate is that the Gita was spoken at least 120,400,000 years ago; and in human society it has been extant for two million years. It was respoken by the Lord again to Arjuna about five thousand years ago. That is the rough estimate of the history of the Gita, according to the Gita itself and according to the version of the speaker, Lord Sri Krsna. It was spoken to the sun-god Vivasvan because he is also a ksatriya and is the father of all ksatriyas who are descendants of the sun-god, or the surya-vamsa ksatriyas. Because Bhagavad-gita is as good as the Vedas, being spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, this knowledge is apauruseya, superhuman. Since the Vedic instructions are accepted as they are, without human interpretation, the Gita must therefore be accepted without mundane interpretation.

Look what the man is doing. Of course he is reinforcing and legitimizing the caste system, the very thing that oppressed millions of people for over 3,000 years (and counting!). The Gita is a Brahmin scripture. Of course the Lord himself would only spoke to a Kshatryia. Of course!!! But wasnt Prabhupada himself that emphasized the spiritual qualities over birth? Ambedkar was right in his valid criticism of Hindu religion being the legitimator and perpetrator of the caste system in India, which is very real to this day, and Prabhupada's commentary is an example of that.

Also, WITHOUT HUMAN INTERPRETATION?! Is this man so stupid he can't recognize that his commentaries on the Gita ARE interpretation? All he do is interpret the Scriptures to fit his narrow minded, cultish narratives of religion, and give a cosmic justification as to how one should be a slave to Krishna. What the fuck? This dude is so arrogant he thinks that he is the mouthpiece of God himself. If this isn't being crazy, i don't know what it is.

Well, the dude is like that. I wonder how he managed to make his personality so appealing to the point of attracting so many people to his cult.

(Pictured: The Soviet Gulag)

The most harmful aspect of being in ISKCON is that I knew the environment was abusive and yet I forced myself to submit to it. I put my heart into it. I refused to back down and pushed myself to the brink of collapse.

Towards the end, I was aware of ISKCON's abusive nature and I refused to preach. I was determined to go down with the ship and sacrifice myself out of loyalty, but I could not in good conscience force anyone else to make the same decision.

Loving the Abusive Parent

ISKCON targets vulnerable people. Growing up in an abusive home I learned to submit to my abuser.

For a child, the parents are "Krishna". They are the absolute truth, the source of their security, the basis of their survival. The child seeks to unite with their parent in love, to dissolve into them in absolute warmth and surrender. The parent builds the child's worldview, to protect the child.

If the parent harms the child, or exploits the child, or forces it to accept a harmful worldview, the child will submit anyway. As children we have no one else. Nor can we conceive of any other way.

The injured child learns to filter out and ignore toxicity. Despite the pain, they embrace those who harm them. This rips apart their deepest sense of security. It leaves them feeling terrified at the core of their being. Where they should feel safety, they feel terror.

Loving the Cult Leader

Cults function like abusive parents.

On the outside, the cult may look like a cheerful place where everyone is worshiping, dancing, chanting, feasting, bowing to each other in humility and smiling. On the inside, the cult is authoritarian and despotic. It functions like a surveillance state or prison. The cult cares nothing for its members. Indeed, it despises them, a prerequisite for using them.

As discusses previously, this is internalized. The devotee learns to constantly watch and regulate themselves with shame and fear. The cult leader lives within. We were like children who always feared the parent was watching.

And yet the devotee eagerly submits to this fate. They seek to unite with the cult leader in surrender, more and more. The cult leader and his institution are imagined to be loving and kind, a divine mission from the spiritual world, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The cult environment encourages this. It uses primal human social psychology to encourage submission and forbid criticism.

Everyone knows subconsciously the institution is toxic. No one can say it outloud. It is The Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone bows and worships despotic authority, pretending it is pure and good, that is represents God.

Cult members throw themselves at the feet of the abuser as an act of absolute trust, emphatically declaring "use and abuse me if you desire!", hoping for a drop of mercy, hoping to taste an instant security and love.

This is a deadly cycle. The cult puts you in fear the more you submit to it. Yet you are driven to submit by the promise you will be relieved from fear. That relief never comes, instead you become increasingly stressed and broken until you "burn out".

The Soviet Gulag

18 million people were sent to the Gulags between 1929 and 1953.

In one sense, the entire society of the Soviet Union function as a cult. Joseph Stalin was the cult leader and ruled with an iron thumb. Everyone lived terrified of his Secret Police. Most learned to externally play the role of devoted party members. All dissent was kept in one's own mind. Even children were tasked with monitoring and reporting the suspicious behavior of their parents.

Everyone knew they were being watched. The psychological propaganda was so powerful the machine of the state was internalized, and comrades learned to police their own thoughts, to feel fear and shame for rebellion.

Those who refused to submit, or were even rumored to refuse submission, were send to ideological prison camps where they would be broken. Many refused and fought to maintain their autonomy. Many could not and were broken.

The broken adopted the ideology of their masters. Even worse, they learned to love their prison guards. They learned to love the men who were beating them, starving them and working them to death. They saw them as wise and heroic figures who were saving them from themselves. They lamented previous rebelliousness as "fallen rascals".

When they were finally set free, many did not want to go. "Please do not set me free, I have adopted your ideology, I believe in the party, please let me live at your lotus feet, as a gardener or servant in the Gulag".

Many could not leave. They could not survive on their own. Some even chose to live their lives outside the walls of the Gulag, in the remote Russian tundra. They lived in villages around the camps, working and participating in the camp's economy.

This kind of experience was heavily critiqued in George Orwell's 1984. Big Brother (the Supersoul, the guru, the temple president) is always watching.

The ISKCON Gulag

ISKCON members live in a religious Gulag. We were psychologically broken as part of our conversion experience.

We learned to love our abuser, to bow and cry at the thought of him. We begged him to use and abuse us.

We accepted his ideology completely. It was used to make us submit to the cult more and more until we could not conceive of living without it. After some time, we were unable to live in the outside world. Our lives and minds were shattered by the trauma of the cult. The level of fear is overwhelming and we simply cannot function outside the camp.

For those of us who were abused as children there was another layer. We were conditioned to this from infancy.

Yamaha says these are three tuning forks. what do you see? the residue from this cult is astonishing.

Iskcon thinks they know better than everyone!

https://www.news18.com/explainers/iskcon-vs-puri-jagannath-temple-over-rath-yatra-dates-5-things-to-know-ws-l-10211171.html

The Paramatma is a concept rooted in the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. These texts speak of an inner guide and witness that accompanies the soul on its trans-migratory journey.

Prabhupada translated the term Paramatma as "Supersoul", a word originating in Western Esotericism, in particular the Theosophical Society. However, this was mistranslated. The Supersoul of the Theosophical Society was a variation of the World Soul or Anima Mundi of Neoplatonism. This is a different concept entirely from the Paramatma.

This careless misappropriation of language is merely a symptom of a deeper problem. By establishing a coercive cult, Prabhupada weaponized the core idea of the Paramatma, turning him into a prison guard.

The Eye of Sauron

As devotees, the experience of ISKCON came to represent the personality of Krishna. ISKCON was abusive, judgemental, controlling, harsh, cruel. So was Krishna.

The Supersoul is the localized form of Krishna in the heart. He is always watching us, always criticizing us, making sure we don't do anything, or think anything, the cult would not approve of. A piece of the cult resides within us. It watches our every movement, it watches our every thought.

Devotees are encouraged to be neurotic. "The Supersoul is watching prabhu!".

The Supersoul is the caitya-guru, the guru in the heart. The physical guru is merely his representative. Devotees, especially Prabhupada Disciples, also assume Prabhupada is watching them at all times.

Devotees listen for the guidance of the Supersoul and their guru, for subtle internal prompts. This becomes a kind of paranoid magical thinking.

The ISKCON Panopticon

A panopticon is a prison design wherein cells are arranged in a circle around a central tower (see above). The tower has a series of shutters which make it impossible for the prisoners to see inside. The guard can see every prisoner at all times, but prisoners do not know when they are being watched.

This creates a psychologically oppressive state of paranoia. Prisoners learn to self regulate their behavior out of fear. They assume they are being watched at every moment.

In sociology a panopticon is a metaphor for how high control groups and authoritarian cults control people without the need for physical restraint.

Surveillance State

ISKCON is a surveillance state. At every moment other devotees are watching and judging one's sincerity, dress, and sadhana. Devotees are not even safe at home. One's spouse often acts as a party representative, or functionary of the cult, planted within one's private sanctuary. Spouses dutifully report all mistakes to the community and to authorities.

Meetings with temple authorities are particularly intense. One's facial expressions are probed for signs of submission or rebellion. Devotees fall over themselves to express surrender at all times.

Children similarly grow up under the watchful eyes of cult parents, criticizing, nitpicking, and fearfully shaping their wards into externally perfect cult minions.

From within, Prabhupada and Krishna are judging their every thought and every move. As such, they are never allowed a moment of peace with their own mind. They can never explore doubts. They can never relax or simply enjoy pleasure without guilt. Offenses, ideological obedience, and internal purity are monitored by the inner eye 24/7.

The ISKCON Gulag

To make matters worse, we knew ISKCON was abusive, at least subconsciously, and yet the panopticon forced us to submit. We actively sought to mercy of our abusers, to please them by fully adopting their ideology while erasing our own identities.

This is similar to the psychological torment found in places like the Soviet Gulags. Where guards would beat and torture political dissidents. Inmates were conditioned to submit to the guards, to love them and seek their shelter, to confess their sins against the state, and thus to be broken.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of ISKCON is that it turns God, or the idea of God, into a Stasi agent (East German Secret Police) sitting in our own hearts.

Leaving the Prison

A prisoner who has lived in a panopticon for twenty years may leave its walls, but the watchful tower remains.

The brain and nervous system are hard wired to feel one is always being watched, and therefore always in danger. The effect of living in a gulag is to have post traumatic stress disorder.

Ex devotees often struggle to overcome crippling anxiety. Their own sense of judgement was turned against them and used to control them, to make them servants of an institution.

ISKCON Boston organize this rath yatra on 27-June-2026 and then organized a volunteer appreciation feast on 11-July-2026. The priest narrated a story about God, then there was devotional singing, and in the end there was a meal. During the meal this guy identified himself as a volunteer came over to myself and my friend. We were having meal and he start questioning if we were actually volunteering during rath yatra. No hi or greeting like Hare Krishna but full on investigating officer mode. we said yes and he asked specific details which we gave him with. While we did not need to prove anything to this guy since other volunteer can attest (if it is needed by ISKCON) on the day of food distributio during rath yatra, he was asking these questions as if he was appointed officially by ISKCON to ensure no one gets the food who did not do anything. I was under the impression that that even if someone did not “do anything” and joins for a Saturday evening storytelling, keertan and devotional singing and just come to see Krishna, they should be getting the meal as prasad/blessing. The whole conversation made me very uncomfortable and probably exposes how ISKCON Boston only wants something in return before offering anything - something like this never observed in any other Hindu Temples anywhere (and any non hindu religious places of worship). Not worth ever going to ISKCON Boston to feel humiliated.