"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep." (John 10:1,2)

In the search for religious truth, one encounters a seemingly bewildering variety of options. In terms of popularity, there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of minor religions, a handful of major religions, and (again) hundreds of sects within those. Buddhism or Jainism? Atheism, Missionary Baptist, Catholicism, or Presbyterian? Shintoism, Rosecrucianism or Scientology? Egads -- where to start?

Yet beneath the surface appearances, there are really just a few basic options, differences which can be expressed as simple questions: Is there a supernatural realm? Is there a single creator God? Of what sort? Morally good or otherwise? Interacting with the world or not? Once these (and few more detailed) questions are asked, the world's religions drop into a sort of tree or graph structure, with just a few options at each endpoint.

Another litmus test I'd suggest is to consider whether a religion is primarily marketed as a "front door" religion, or as a "back door" religion. In other words, does it admit it is a religion, and is it honest about it's own nature, or does it often pretend to be something it isn't? Will they tell you, up front, the beliefs or outlook their adherents tend to adopt? Or are they uncomfortable admitting such, hiding those pesky details until later?

Most of you have had some religious adherent knock on your front door. Upon opening, the person or people will announce who they are, and, if they're honest, what religion or organization they're representing. So far, this is a "front door" religion: it's members admit it is a religion, and make no bones about the fact they'd like you to join. Same goes for churches which advertise on TV, or send out flyers near the holidays. Nobody goes to an Easter service expecting merely a pageant. People are well aware of the religious context, and most churches will even spell out their theological beliefs on their web sites.

Now, in some cases, religious sects turn out to be something different than they say up front. For example, some insist they're "Christian" while denying some extremely important Christian doctrine, like Jesus as God incarnate. (Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science spring to mind.) They're certainly welcomed to believe whatever they'd like, but it's quite another thing to try to modify the longstanding definition of someone else's religion.

But even then, I'll give them this much: they're at least admitting that they're offering a religion. Pretending you're consistent with a popular religion is dishonest, but not quite as dishonest as claiming you're not promoting a religion at all -- to bypass people's defenses -- when, in fact, you're doing precisely that.

Yoga and Meditation

Many who sign up for "yoga" classes in health clubs, strip malls (or even public schools, apparently) will be told explicitly that it is not a religion. Yet many yoga teachers are pushing a religious worldview, and will continually introduce more elements as the teaching progresses. But that's not the only, or even most important aspect of indoctrination at work.

Contrary to those who insist yoga is not religious, the word "yoga" is derived from a Sanskrit word meaning "to yoke" or "control", and refers, in India, to a method or technique for acquiring a religious achievement or outlook. In the west, we're used to the idea of religious beliefs being adopted rationally: A person introduces an argument for their worldview, we weigh the evidence, and decide, consciously, to accept or reject that proposition. But yogic techniques don't work that way: their stated intent -- in their original culture -- is to achieve or install a religious outlook physically without the consent of the conscious mind. To foist such a mind-altering practice on someone, while insisting it is not religious at all, is, systemically, a manipulative maneuver. This is true even when the one doing so is unaware they're doing so, or when their intentions are wholly sincere.

Now I should probably back up and explain a bit: Most westerners are unfamiliar with the idea of physically installing a religious outlook in the brain, without conscious consent. In fact, I expect most of us would be shocked at the idea, and insist no such thing can happen to them. But indeed, it can -- and since we're all made with roughly the same mental design, we also share the many of the same weaknesses.

So what's the evidence? Consider "mediation", which is promoted as "just a way to relax". Yet disinterested studies show that simple relaxation exercises are just as effective as meditation. (See here and here, for example; unfortunately, there are pro-meditation groups who generated non-rigorous or even fraudulent "studies" which flood the web with impressive-sounding claims -- see here. The media often repeats these claims and studies unquestioningly.) Yet people aren't told there is a rather large body of rigorous research showing numerous negative effects from meditation, including an extensive German study of TM participants, discovering the majority experienced psychological disorders and a decreased ability to concentrate. Another study showed that meditators became progressively worse at a memory related task (while demonstrating how a lack of controls can produce the appearance of false benefits). Other effects include feeling more negative and judgmental, grandiosity, feelings of elation, suicidal feelings, feeling addicted to meditation itself (self-perpetuating), and a decrease in honesty.

More to the point, other effects are almost religious in nature. In Psychiatry, RJ Castillo noted that meditation altered consciousness, induced the experience of depersonalization -- the sensation of being disassociated with one's self, of sensing the world as unreality, and of sensing the world as a continuous whole. Those familiar with Eastern religion will recognize this as a core aspect of Hindu/Buddhist belief: reality is illusory and the self (and others) are ultimately unimportant. The relative merits or hazards of this worldview can be debated, but the salient point is that most considering the practice of meditation are not being told, up front, that they may experience a profound outlook or worldview shift as a result. (Firsthand notes here; "... in reflecting on my behaviour after coming home at the time, when I practiced just twice a day (TM)meditation, I would say that I was much less responsive to human acts of kind[n]ess or humor than I am now." More here, too.)

Even more disturbingly, neurologist Michael Persinger and others have documented that frequent mediation increases susceptibility to episodes of what they call "epilepsy" -- a sensation of a "sensed presence"; of being observed by an unseen entity.

Meditators displayed a significantly wider range of complex partial epileptic-like signs. Experiences of vibrations, hearing one's name called, paranormal phenomena, profound meaning from reading poetry/prose, and religious phenomenology were particularly frequent among meditators. Numbers of years of TM practice were significantly correlated with the incidence of complex partial signs and sensed presences....

The positive association between the self-reported duration of meditation (an inference of repeated trials) and the frequency of complex partial epileptic-like signs (but not control experiences) suggests a specific "dose-dependence" relationship. [Persinger, 1993]

Again, one could debate whether these experiences are helpful or harmful (or real or induced), but let's admit they are indeed religious in nature. And it's not a great leap to characterize them as generally leading to, or at least encouraging, the worldview most common among those who frequently meditate. (Ever wonder why committed New Age adherents speak often of "vibrations", for example? There's a clue in the study cited above.)

At this point, it's probably relevant to note the experience of David Icke, who began as a professional football (soccer) player, and, by the late 1980's, had become one of Britain's most famous sports commentators. He had also joined the Green party, becoming its national spokesman by the early 1990s. At this time, Icke was also meditating frequently, and had started to feel that he was constantly being observed by an unseen entity.

Wondering what was happening, he asked whatever it was to explain what was going on, and felt moved to purchase a particular metaphysical book at a bookstore. This led to a channeling session with a medium who relayed information the entity was allegedly trying to give to David, concerning his future role and activities. "In 1991, after a trip to Peru, he wrote Truth Vibrations, an autobiographical work which summarised his life experiences up to that point, with an emphasis on his recent spiritual encounters." [link] Today Icke appears otherwise sane and level-headed, except for his enduring conviction that earth is ruled by shape-shifting, lizard-like "Reptilian" aliens from the solar system Alpha Draconis. [link]

True, Icke is an extreme example -- most frequent meditators don't end up battling aliens from Alpha Draconis. But many I know do seem to shift their theology, towards a more "New Age" perspective. And a number of people I've known have started having contacts with spiritual "entities" as a result. And, as Persinger notes, such experiences do seem to correlate, as best I can see, with meditation frequency.

Again, the point here isn't whether Icke (or anyone's else's beliefs) are true or false, whether such people sense or contact real spiritual entities or are merely experiencing a kind of epileptic seizure. The point is that this type of phenomenlogy is a far cry from the promise of a mere "relaxation" technique we hear when journalists and news reporters suggest listeners should to meditate daily to reduce stress and improve their health.

Returning to Yoga, I am unaware of any similar rigorous studies, but anecdotal evidence suggests the same mechanism is at work. For example, when I was speaking of such things, in a trendy part of town, with a date, a young man at the next table was talking with this friends about how his girlfriend was attempting to get him involved with yoga, and how he was seeing lights and experiencing other phenomena during the exercises. Another friend related she had also experienced such phenomena as result of a yoga session. Again, remember that the entire point of Yogic practice in India and Asia is to induce religious experiences and a particular theological outlook. We should not be surprised to learn the techniques have the exact same effect on the human mind in North America and Europe.

An ethical approach would be to admit this up front, rather than claiming yoga is merely "stretching" or "exercise." But it's undoubtedly true that the appeal of such practices would be greatly diminished if people were consciously told it was a religious practice which tends to induce religious experiences -- and told what worldview was being physically induced as a result. Such honesty would mean the end of yoga being taught in public schools and hospitals, and promoted using taxpayer dollars on PBS.

Buddhism

Buddhism is also marketed as something it isn't, and hasn't generally been. To quote John Horgan, in Slate:

For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect.

One of my favorite guides to Buddhism (sitting on my shelf as I write this) I purchased simply because many American "Buddhists" were offended by the content, presenting, as it did, authentic historical Buddhism, not the "American" perspective in which such troubling details are hidden from newcomers.

Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment — Buddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there.

The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.

The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.

Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.

If you're interested in such things, or know someone who is, read the whole thing. There is much more I could say about Buddhism in this vein, particularly Tibetan Buddhism, but suffice it to say that proselytizers are pushing a deeply religious belief system while claiming it's not religious at all, and/or misleading interested parties about its ultimate intentions.

Conclusion

Certainly, there are honest and dishonest promoters of every religion. There certainly are cases where Christians have promoted "just a fun event" with the intention of making a case for their belief system. And there are practitioners of Buddhism, Yoga, and Zazen-style meditation who are honest about the effects and historical uses of such a system. But the question is one of relative frequency: How is that belief mainly being spread? Do its adherents generally admit it's a religion? Or that what they're doing is actually religious? Or do they try to pass it off as "psychology", "self control", "exercise", "stretching", or "relaxation"? Does the religion admit, up front, its metaphysical arguments and beliefs, and openly defend them? Or does it primarily employ social or even physical tactics to trasmit itself, without the conscious consent of the mind?

We believe that selling a product in a store as one thing, when it's really another, is inherently unethical. Nobody wants to discover their organic food isn't, or that all-beef hot dogs are made from pork and chicken, or that allegedly US-grown catfish are really a potentially toxic Chinese import. People should demand the same standards from religious adherents, and avoid religious movements which are uncomfortable holding their beliefs up for rational scrutiny. And westerners need to be aware that religious views can be physically installed in the brain, without the consent or involvement of the conscious, rational mind.