Comments by Lake

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posted on February 14 at 8:32 p.m.

Jason wrote: "today [the Scientologists] all must be out fishing."

Or having fun with their honeys (or in my case waiting for them to come home) -- it is Valentine's Day after all!

Dave Sweetland wrote: "I would be glad to engage in open discussion and debate with 'rules of engagement' publicly agreed to in advance as is customary in political debates."

Wonderful Dave. I'd be happy to do just that. I've spent the last 30 years looking pretty deeply into both sides of the Scientology debate, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion with you about Scientology.

In answer to your initial (rhetorical?) questions:

Q: Do you have a disconnection policy?

A: Yes, in a manner of speaking. The Church explains it here at their FAQ question "What is 'disconnection'?"

Q: Do you have occult (confidential) information that you only reveal to those invited?

A: No to the "occult" part (though your mileage may vary on that, depending on what you consider "occult"), and yes to the "confidential" part. The Church answers the question "Why does the Church have confidential scriptures?" here:

If you consider "out of body experiences" to be "occult", then yes, Scientology could then be called "occult". Though personally, I'd consider OOBs to be "spiritual experiences" and not "occult experiences".

Q: Do you charge "fixed" donations?

A: Churches request fixed donations, yes. They are not a requirement to be a Scientologist and take part in many of the Church's services and activities. The Church explains it here in the FAQ section called "How are Churches supported financially?":

There's also a "Free Scientology Center" and various ways of doing a good portion of Scientology auditing and courses at various discounts and/or free.


Additionally, most of the common criticisms leveled against Scientology have been pretty well debunked by Scientologist(s) here:

Finally, while this last website does a fairly decent job of addressing the various myths and rumors, I'm sure there are additional and/or follow-up questions. And I'd be happy to answer them.

On Scientology Church Decries Wave of Worldwide Persecution

Posted on November 23 at 7:44 p.m.

Richard wrote "the Utts report saying 'a small to medium psychic functioning was being exhibited'"

Yes, it was a meta-analysis of all the work that had been done over the previous two decades or so. It included many studies done of your average Joe, as well as those who believed they had stronger paranormal abilities than usual. The average across all groups was a "small to medium psychic functioning".

If you spend some more time looking into Hal Puthoff's and Russell Targ's work, I think you will find that the Scientology OT's results were among the strongest. Pat Price was off the chart, getting p values in the range of 10^35.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 21 at 1:39 p.m.

I'm confronting things quite well, Richard.

I don't live in a fairy world where car accidents don't happen and people aren't supposed to die. Or where because Einstein flunked physics, we assume he is stupid. Or because Carl Sagan wrote sci-fi, it means he's incapable of being scientific.

Overall, I don't think PR antics (such as Randi's bloviation), trumps hard, repeatable scientific evidence.

You, however, appear to be caught in this fairy world.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 20 at 11:45 p.m.

Artoo wrote: "I too await what will surely be the world-changing event of my life: the day an OT does something measurably supernatural."

No need to wait then, Artoo. Simply google "Pat-Price".

Or are measurements from scientific experimentation just not good enough for you?

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 20 at 10:55 p.m.

RichardRosen writes "But Randi, understanding scientific method and having been a stage magician...."

Richard, I was a stage magician too, and I'm also a trained scientist. And I understand the scientific method, as well as Scientology.

Your anecdotes and ad hominem are very colorful. They do very little, however, if we're interested in getting to the bottom of whether paranormal phenomena and OT abilities are real or not.

I would suggest you do the research I mentioned above.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 9:28 p.m.

Artoo wrote "I love the first amendment that allows us the ability to have this discussion"

Well then, we're in agreement on something. As apparently is the Church of Scientology, whose Code (authored by Hubbard) includes:

"We of the Church believe ... that all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 4:09 p.m.

"Alien souls are clouding my mind!"

That, or that South Park DVD you got for your birthday.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 3:26 p.m.

Searchlight, Re: Crinnion. He's not a Scientologist.

Re: the Barley formula, Hubbard never suggested the formula "devoid of fruits and vegetables". On the contrary, Hubbard was a strong supporter of necessary vitamins and nutrients, at all ages.

Additionally, the Church of Scientology doesn't require Scientologist parents to use any particular method (or baby formula), to raise or feed their kids -- other than a healthy diet lacking in Ritalin.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 3:03 p.m.


James Randi is an entertainer, not a scientist. In his supposed test, he is the sole judge and jury. His tests are not based on science or the scientific method. The information that I cited, on the other hand, is.

Suggested reading: (and an excellent site, overall)

If you want to learn further about independent, controlled scientific testing done of OTs, I invite you to google Scientology OTs such as Pat Price, Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff and others.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 1:48 p.m.

Money wrote: "The article on sauna detox, hosted on the NIH website you provided a link to, has absolutely nothing to do with Scientology."

Wrong. The "sauna detox" protocol discussed in the research article at the website is the same as Scientology's "Purification Program". It is pure Scientology.

Your remaining spin and hand-waving does nothing for your case.

On The Science of Scientology

Page 1 of 2 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: