Saint Hill and the Development of Systematic Theology in the Church of Scientology (1959–1967)

Scientology Studies 2.0: Lessons learned and paths forward

“…Since then, he has produced several important contributions to Scientology studies, such as his work on the Sea Organization (the church's priesthood and senior management; culminating in Melton, ) and the introductory volume The Church of Scientology (Melton, ). James R. Lewis, an American at the University of Tromsø, is another monumental presence in the field, having produced numerous works, including two edited volumes (; with Hellesøy, 2017) and journal issues in Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review () and Numen (). In recent years, Lewis and some of his graduate students in Norway have shifted attention away from the Church of Scientology and toward “independent” Scientologists who disaffiliate from the church yet remain committed to their own interpretations of Hubbard's philosophy and practices (Hellesøy, ; Lewis, ).…”

“…The third monograph was my Among the Scientologists : History , Theology , and Praxis (), based on fieldwork and interviews conducted with church members in the United States for PhD research at Claremont Graduate University (, ). I have also produced work in recent years on Scientology's “pilgrimage” sites (), intellectual history (), evolving PR strategies (), Gnosticism (Westbrook & Lewis, ), and systematic theology (), including features of its “anti‐psychiatric theology” ().…”

New Religious Movements, Technology, and Science: The Conceptualization of the E‐meter in Scientology Teachings

“…Even before engaging with the specific teachings concerning the E‐meter, we should remark that “technology” (tech) is a pivotal word in Hubbard's/Scientology parlance, an overarching term designating Hubbard's “discoveries” and teaching, the lexicon in which they are explained and their application. Hence, “technology” virtually means “Scientology's doctrine.” Hubbard was particularly insistent on the intact (“standard”) preservation of the “tech.” He expressed it clearly in a 1965 policy letter entitled “Keep Scientology Working,” a document still used as an introduction to auditor training courses, and displayed in the rooms of Scientology organizations: (1) Having the correct technology; (2) Knowing the technology; (3) Knowing it is correct; (4) Teaching correctly the correct technology; (5) Applying the technology; (6) Seeing that the technology is correctly applied; (7) Hammering out of existence incorrect technology; (8) Knocking out incorrect applications; (9) Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology; (10) Closing the door on incorrect application (Hubbard ; for a detailed discussion see Westbrook , 147–49).…”

“…The scholar Donald Westbrook suggests that Miscavige's Religious Technology Center, whose declared goal is to preserve the pure application of Hubbard's technologies, is analogous to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Westbrook , n. 115).…”

“…At other times, Hubbard explicitly distinguished the E‐meter from a lie detector and downplayed the relevance of personal information yielded during auditing (i.e., the goal was getting rid of spiritual impediments, not assessing the moral relevance of what the preclears had actually done); however, he did establish specific procedures called “security checks” that, although justified in the general theological picture as merely aimed at the improvement of the preclears, could be—and according to ex‐Scientologists actually were —used in order to obtain sensitive information liable to be used against the audited subjects: the procedure, in fact, includes questions about the preclears’ sexual behavior, crime records, and possible negative thoughts against the founder (Westbrook , 118, 132–34). Ex‐Scientologists admit to the fact that they did perceive/regard the E‐meter as an infallible lie detector; it is reported that staff at Saint Hill (Hubbard's English mansion and central Scientology headquarters over the years 1959–1967) refused to undergo E‐meter–based security checks out of fear of what could be discovered about their private lives (Miller , 239).…”