MISA, "sacred eroticism" and apologists

english version of  Roxana Mălina Chirilă's article

There is a wave in sociology, anthropology and other similar fields in which scholars are trying to understand the insider perspective of the groups they study. Books like Onaje X.O. Woodbine's "Take Back What the Devil Stole: An African American Prophet's Encounters in the Spirit World" or Katie Gaddini's "The Struggle to Stay: Why Single Evangelical Women Are Leaving the Church" feature people of different faiths, but do so in a way that allows you to better understand who the people involved are and why they think the way they do. Onaje Woodbine's book is about a "saintly" woman from a poor black community in the US, who has had a hard life and found God (who speaks to her) and is now recognized as a kind of community leader. Kate Gaddini's book is about women in the evangelical Christian community in the US who are facing misogynistic issues within their church.

Woodbine and Gaddini try to strike a balance between reflexive disbelief on the part of those who do not share the beliefs of those communities and total acceptance on the part of the members of those communities. They don't want to let their own value judgments distort the picture of those they describe, but neither are they shy to say when something might contradict their subjects. They want the reader to form an opinion as if they were there on the spot - they don't want to convince you that their subjects are right, they want you to see and understand them, even if you disagree.

You might think that Massimo Introvigne, an Italian sociologist, is doing the same kind of research when he talks about new religions and discusses "sects" centered on the idea of sacred eroticism, which suffer from conflict with ordinary social norms. One might think that Gabriel Andreescu is also trying to reach the same balanced position when he leans on Introvigne's ideas to talk about MISA's problems with the law in the Human Rights Review. But no. Despite their specialized terms, their methodology leaves much to be desired. Where Woodbine and Gaddini would explicitly state what MISA's views are and keep a distance from their subjects, Andreescu and Introvigne assume MISA's views as if they were their own. Where Woodbine and Gaddini would go decidedly into detail and ask questions about the finer points of the beliefs of those involved, Andreescu and Introvigne accept the superficial level they are offered.

Admittedly, Introvigne has written an entire book on the subject that I haven't gotten around to reading in its entirety yet. After the first 20 pages, I'm tempted to give him a detailed analysis (maybe he's more professional towards the end, though he doesn't seem to be), but in his most recent article discussing some MISA-related arrests he shows a crass lack of understanding of the subject he's tackling.

Sacred eroticism

Massimo Introvigne has a theory that he applies to MISA as well: many new religious groups are judged very harshly for attitudes about sexuality that are at odds with those of the majority. Specifically, Introvigne says MISA is being hounded by the authorities for daring to talk about sacred eroticism.

I don't want to go into the details of MISA's philosophy on sexuality now. It's an interesting topic that would indeed deserve an academic description, but right now I just want to have a starting point for the article. I won't summarize Introvigne's ideas, but I'll speak from information I've received directly from the yogic community, expressing ideas I've heard from lectures, conferences, and direct discussions with yogis.

In brief. The MISA yogis believe that everything in the universe is energy - starting with matter and reaching to subtle spiritual subtle energies. The human being has a subtle body (yes, yogis, I know there are actually more than one; I'm simplifying greatly to end today's discussion) in which there are seven centers of force, from the lowest that governs vitality to the highest that connects with God. These force centers can be activated more weakly or more intensely, and energy 'blockages' can occur at the various levels. In concrete terms, if you have activated the force center of will, you have an extraordinary will; if you have a block at the level of the love center, you have problems with love. Is that clear so far?

The MISA yogis believe that people's greatest reservoir of energy is sexual energy. But sexual energy is a 'low' energy, and ordinary sexuality wastes this energy. It is important, therefore, for the yogi to conserve and transform their sexual energy into higher energies, such as that of will, love, intuition, the supramental - and then to raise it to the center of force where they have the connection with God.

MISA's idea of sex is not sex. It is spirituality. It is the transformation of sexual energy into spiritual energy, which makes sex a tool, not a goal. If you hear them talk about "sexual continence", that's what they mean - and the physical sign of sexual energy being transformed is that men stop ejaculating and women stop menstruating, which is what yogis explain at every opportunity.

Ultimately, yogis want to become one with God, which they pursue both through meditation and asanas (those postures you know from the movies) or sexuality or other methods. Their assiduous work is not towards hedonism, but towards spirituality through multiple paths. And spirituality involves getting over the "ego" and not tripping into petty obstacles such as greed, jealousy and other faults. The yogi should not get caught in the whirl of everyday problems, but be detached from them and manifest only qualities.

Noble, isn't it?

Sacred eroticism and the accusations against MISA: two separate things

But MISA didn't get into legal trouble because some people had opinions about the world and God when they had sex in their own homes, but because there were suspicions and accusations of abuse. Involvement in the sex industry and the eternal queue of women outside Gregorian Bivolaru's bedroom door had their say, and this is where things get complicated.

Says Andreescu in his article "Repression of groups promoting 'sacred eroticism' - the international pattern of an injustice (I)" (Human Rights Review, no. 2/2024, p. 41):

Personal or group attitudes towards sexuality and eroticism are protected by privacy. It also covers what constitutes social privacy, in the sense of the right to go out of the personal universe "in order to reach out to other members of society". The European Court of Human Rights has distinguished several situations where exposure of nudity is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. The sexualization of pamphleteering in public debate is also protected. At the same time, sexual assaults, ranging from discrimination, abuse and harassment to rape and human trafficking, which have been all too widespread, have coalesced public opinion and institutions against them in recent decades. Movements associated with sacred eroticism are not compatible even by their very teaching with sexual aggression. The repressive actions against them have often been based on such accusations, but they could not be legally sustained.

Unfortunately, Andreescu does not express himself very clearly, but as far as I understand him, what he means is that the existence of sexual assaults in general led to the coalescence of institutions against "movements associated with sacred eroticism". I'm going to be extremely generous in my interpretation and assume that his point is that because there are many negative deviations from the norm, many consider deviation from the norm itself to be negative. In other words, because some things that are unusual are bad, we consider everything unusual to be bad.

Obviously, if that's what he means, Andreescu is right to claim that the logic is flawed. Just because most of the world doesn't think about God when having sex doesn't automatically mean that thinking about God when having sex is bad. And so on and so forth.

But let's look more closely at what Andreescu says at the end of the quote:

The repressive actions against them were often based on such accusations, but they could not be legally supported.

Hmmm. Here and in the rest of the article he talks mainly about the events of 2004, when there were raids on the ashrams of the yogis in Bucharest, a lot of materials were confiscated, there was a media fuss and other things that led to Bivolaru fleeing the country.

But what does "could not be legally sustained" mean? Especially in our country?

First of all, in Romania we have a problem with the justice system. Too often there is a scandal like "magistrates have ruled that a girl under 11 can consent to have sex with a 52-year-old man" (source) and I am sure you know of other high-profile cases where judges have handed down sentences that boggle the mind. Would it surprise you to learn that the situation is different when the abuses are more complicated?

Secondly, even with the state of justice as it is, Gregorian Bivolaru was convicted of sexual acts with minors. The Yogis say that Mădălina Dumitru, the victim in this case, denied that she had been abused and denied that she had been in a sexual relationship with Gregorian Bivolaru. They also say she was abused by the police and made to sign a false statement to convict Bivolaru.

Unfortunately, two ugly things can be true at the same time. Mădălina Dumitru indeed denies everything and withdrew her statement given under duress in 2004; but Bivolaru was convicted on the basis of telephone intercepts which proved that he had a relationship with her, not on the basis of her withdrawn statement. Meanwhile, Mădălina Dumitru was indeed abused in 2004 by the Romanian state. The mere fact that we know her name proves it - her identity and her image should have been hushed up, not plastered all over the news channels. The fact that she was dragged to the police, roughed up and assaulted to give statements in the absence of her parents or a lawyer was miserable. In other words, Mădălina Dumitru was subjected to abuse when she was a minor.

My personal opinion is that indeed the authorities cared more about finding something against the yogis than protecting a victim who was 17 at the time (her relationship with Bivolaru dated back to 2002, according to the intercepts). I honestly believe that their attitude cut off many opportunities in her life and almost ensured that she would remain loyal to the yogis to be their martyr on duty.

In addition to Bivolaru's sexual adventures with minors, the yogis have also been accused in Romania of human trafficking and other rather serious things. It's true, many of their offenses have been time-barred, and some have been acquitted. However, although there have not been many convictions following the events of 2004, public discussions on the internet have been sparked since then, revealing many of the Movement's underbelly. From 2005 onwards yogis and former yogis gathered in places such as the Softpedia forum, on the famous thread "Misa and Bivolaru - pro and con", then on the defunct exmisa forum, to discuss all sorts of underbelly of the group, bringing to light things like pornographic videos sold without the consent of the participants and more.

From spirituality to abuse

Andreescu's article goes like this:

Movements associated with sacred eroticism are not compatible by their very teaching with sexual assault.

Friends, tell me: are there people who say one thing and do another? Because I know they do, and the fact that the teaching of a group says one thing does not make it impossible for members of the group to do the other.

But how can one reconcile the idea of sacred eroticism - and of sexuality that must always be spiritual and uplifting - with sexual abuse at the Movement level? Andreescu's suggestion is that it cannot. My suggestion is that it can too easily.

Back to what I said above: at MISA, the philosophy says that sexuality is not an end, but a method. The ultimate question is not whether you enjoyed it or whether it felt good, but whether you got closer to God by walking further on the spiritual path. And this coming closer to God is difficult because the yogi is seen as a being who is still struggling with ego and his own limitations. If he is unable to open himself to divinity because of problems such as inability to love, embarrassment, pride, self-importance, then confronting his own limitations can lead to suffering. The yogi has to learn the lesson, and then suffering is just a growing pain.

Do you see where we are heading? Or not yet? Let's insist.

In every man is a spark of God, who is his true Self. And in you there is one. You are a divine being, but God's game is to pretend to be broken and small. We hide behind ego, a mask that hides our own divine nature. That which suffers is not part of you. You have to get over the suffering, to reconcile with everything around you. Sometimes it's hard, sometimes you encounter obstacles that make you feel uncomfortable or doubtful, but you have to persevere, because in the end there is God.

Is that clear? Or not yet? Let's be concrete.

If you feel something is wrong, the problem is with you. It's your ego. The course wants to do you good. Other yogis want to make you feel good. The master not only wants to do you good, he knows the best way to do it. If you have the opportunity to receive a special spiritual initiation and you refuse it, that is clearly a proof that your ego is revolting at the idea of evolution. If it's a sexual initiation, you should already know that sexual energy is the greatest reservoir of energy of the human being, and you should want to receive it all the more so that you can use that energy for spiritual purposes. What's stopping you? Your modesty? Embarrassment? The problem is with you. Do you feel sick at the thought of doing certain things? It's because you have demonic influences, because you're grasping for trifles. You're a maggot. It's not an insult. It's an observation. You're a larva that doesn't want to become a butterfly. You can't get past the crap in your head to evolve.

Is that clear?

With this philosophical basis, almost anything can be seen as a spiritual test and an opportunity for growth. Reticence becomes part of the story of the spiritual path and overcoming obstacles. Negative experiences are reinterpreted in a key in which they become tests and trials on your way to a divine purpose. So tell me this: is it possible for someone to take advantage of this point of view to persuade you to do things you don't want to do? Is it possible for someone to persuade you to overcome your misgivings and put aside your doubts and objections so that you have a bad experience, but one that you insist was useful?

I'm saying that the incompatibility between MISA's teachings about sacred eroticism and sexual abuse doesn't mean that abuse can't happen - but that the moment you suffer abuse, everyone around you will try to convince you that the abuse didn't happen.

(The same goes for other types of abuse or negative experiences. You can't even be upset that someone broke an object you borrowed, because it's really a test to show you to stop clinging to objects.)

Sacred-spiritual abuse

In his article, Andreescu argues (along with Introvigne) that sexual abuse should not be tolerated, and that religious freedom is not a legitimate defense for rapists; however – in the rest of the article - he only makes MISA's apology. We have already seen that he says that sexual abuse is incompatible with the teachings of the Movement. Who knows, maybe he's just thinking of rape as such that it didn't happen - but then he's naive.

Sexual abuse isn't just about aggressively raping someone, it can also mean constantly pressuring someone until they break. Even though Andreescu constantly talks about the Romanian state raids in 2004, he also refers to the French raids in 2023, which were based on complaints from people who were on the course. The names of the individuals have not been made public; as far as I know, the full details of the investigations have not been revealed either. Andreescu is arguing against things today on the basis of past abuses in another context, by other perpetrators.

In his rhetoric against the raids in France, he wonders as well:

Is it legitimate for state authorities to suspect new religious movements?

Honest? Yes. If I were in an organization in charge of national security, I would suspect anything out of the ordinary, on the principle that it's my job to keep the eyes wide open. Then there are situations where the disparity of power between individuals is suspect. The spiritual teacher-disciple relationship includes a power imbalance that is exploitable, and it is worthwhile to have ways of dealing with potential exploitations.

But suspicion is not the same as aggression. As I was saying, in 2004, the Romanian state committed various abuses.

Then, says Andreescu, drawing a comparison between the attitude towards the BOR (romanian church) and MISA:

There have been no raids in monasteries where rumors come from, some verified over time, that young refugees there, completely vulnerable, endure sexual abuse

The fact that the BOR enjoys a privileged status that allows abuses to flourish in its bosom doesn't mean that MISA should be the same, so Andreescu has chosen an unfortunate comparison. Ideally, justice would treat all abuses equally, not letting respected institutions run roughshod while abusing those that share in the public derision.

On the other hand, the comparison is interesting. Although he doesn't say it directly, when Andreescu accuses any raid against yogis as abusive, the implication would be that he wants precisely this kind of privileged status for MISA as well. Let there be no raids, even when there are rumors that things are not right.

It's odd, to say the least, to advocate for someone's legal immunity from sexual abuse.

Introvigne and France

To return to the man who opened the subject of MISA and sacred eroticism: Massimo Introvigne. He wrote an article about recent events in France.

Introvigne says that there is no such thing as "brainwashing" - with which I agree. Brainwashing is a theory that the human mind can be involuntarily transformed, diminishing a person's ability to think and inducing new ideas. Think of movies with agents who activate when they hear a song, or George Orwell's 1984, where at the end, after being tortured in all sorts of ways, the main character feels that he loves Big Brother. Real life is not like that, ok?

What happens is more banal: some people are open to an idea and receive a lot of information that confirms it. Among that information, new ideas are slipped in that are supported by other information. Eventually people begin to accept them as part of their worldview. That's all. That's how you turn someone who's vaguely right-wing into an anti-Semite. That's how you turn someone who's interested in yoga into someone who constantly talks about energies, sexuality, Masonic conspiracies, burned karma and the like. Maybe some yogis don't believe in the Masonic conspiracy, maybe others don't believe in aliens, but adopt other elements from the common background. That's normal. That's how we function as humans: we receive information and form opinions about it, and then we modify our behavior.

(There are ways not to get stolen by the landscape, and they have to do with critical thinking.)

Introvigne then introduces the notion of an "apostate," a former member of a group who becomes militant against the group from which he left. He says explicitly that this is not a value judgment.

According to Introvigne:

the actions in France are based on the testimony of six ex-members;

the six ex-members are apostates;

among the "apostates" are some whose experiences date back more than a decade;

"apostates" are motivated by personal vendetta;

"apostates" have in some cases opened rival yoga schools;

"apostates" have already sought damages through civil lawsuits;

these experiences are based on the idea that they are not consensual because of "brainwashing";

the persons picked up in France at the raids were there in full knowledge and understanding that they were going to sleep with Bivolaru for the purpose of sexual initiation (if that was the purpose of their visit there);

in all groupings, the "apostates" are far fewer than those who simply left;

the discrepancy in numbers between "apostates" and those who stayed shows that the "apostates" are wrong.

Information about those who have testified in France is not public, so Introvigne has no way of knowing the identity of the individuals, much less their motivations. Furthermore, although he said that the label "apostates" is not a valuable one, he has just attacked "apostates" by presuming personal vindictiveness.

That's one of two things:

Introvigne invents power on his own. He believes that anyone who has anything bad to say about MISA is a militant activist who centers his entire identity on destroying MISA out of a spirit of revenge and to eliminate an opponent from the yoga school market.

The Misans told Introvigne that they knew the people in question and portrayed them, and Introvigne took them at their word.

On both counts, Introvigne is wrong.

If he's obviously making things up, the main problem is that he's presenting his imagination as reality and misinforming based on things that exist only in his head. But besides that, the logic involved in his thinking makes it impossible to legitimately criticize a new religious movement. Be warned: anyone who has complaints against a religious grouping is an "apostate"; the number of "apostates" is always very small compared to the number of members who insist that everything is fine; justice is democratically determined by the greater number of supporters; so those who complain are never right, being few in number.

If he gets his information from the yogis, then at least he's not making it up - but he's undeniably biased for a scholar. Where do yogis get that information? Is it verifiable? Is it perfectly certain that no yogi speaks based on what he believes instead of what he knows? Because the yogis also know that Cecilia Tiz would be a super-agent of the SRI who takes 7000 euros a month from Adrian Năstase to work anti-MISA. Or they have taken a former yogi (M.C.) to court, accusing him of owning the exmisa blog (note: the exmisa blog is not the same as the defunct exmisa forum, and M.C. does not own the blog).

Anyway. Let's not drag it out. (You don't know how much I've cut already.)

Closing

The practices of MISA are worth studying, if only for informed discussion later. The belief system, the way sexuality is involved, the way yogis integrate the teachings of the Movement into their lives, all can be interesting.

Despite the subject being discussed ad nauseam, the abuses against yogis in 2004, with all their effects on the Movement and its vision of grouping under the siege of evil forces, are also worth discussing.

But the way these topics are being treated now by MISA apologists is superficial and biased. We can't discuss "sacred eroticism" without discussing at length the dark and potentially coercive side of that "sacredness." And the way they behave towards the "apostates" in France is in the classic style of blaming the victim, even before they know who the victim is.

When I started to speak openly about MISA more than 10 years ago, there were very few people in the press who spoke about the subject with first and last names - or even pseudonyms. In the meantime, former yogis have kept coming forward to speak out, mainly women and many of them from abroad. One of my theories is that people from abroad know their rights better and have more confidence in the justice system than Romanians.

My second theory is that our society is much more prudish than the West. Sex banter and sexual innuendos abound, but we hardly ever discuss sexuality frankly, and anything out of the ordinary is suspect and scandalous. Somehow, the idea that "sacred eroticism" is frowned upon and judged negatively is true; but the same can be said about BDSM or other less common things. If deviance is seen as a bad thing in itself, then it stands to reason that if someone suffers in an atypical situation that they have chosen, it's their own fault for choosing the atypical situation. In the West, however, there is more acceptance and openness, so it can be discussed more nuanced. Yes, you chose something atypical, but the question is also how others behaved. Was there consent? Was there coercion?

MISA claims to want the whole world to have a more positive attitude towards sexuality, but I think it is precisely the Romanian modesty and treating sexual practices as taboo that gives them power and makes them better at hiding their abuses. Greater openness to the subject means that it is easier to recognize when someone is pressuring you and that you know where to go and who to ask for help when you realize that someone is abusing you.