Is Mike Rinder A Scientologist?

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
I can not figure out from Mike Rinder's blog if he is a Scientologist or not.

It seems to me that a lot of the people who post to his blog are Scientologists for sure. But he seems neutral. He is very much against DM but he does not really mention Hubbard at all.

He doesn't talk about the tech working, he simply talks about the crimes. he doesn't talk about using the tech or how grat it is nor does he talk against it.

I see pro Scientology people posting and also anti.

Does anyone know his position on Scientology as a "religion" or a science, or if he think "The tech works" Does he think Hubbard is good or a con artist.

I have e mailed him this question but he did not answer.

Does anyone know. Just curious
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I can not figure out from Mike Rinder's blog if he is a Scientologist or not.

It seems to me that a lot of the people who post to his blog are Scientologists for sure. But he seems neutral. He is very much against DM but he does not really mention Hubbard at all.

He doesn't talk about the tech working, he simply talks about the crimes. he doesn't talk about using the tech or how grat it is nor does he talk against it.

I see pro Scientology people posting and also anti.

Does anyone know his position on Scientology as a "religion" or a science, or if he think "The tech works" Does he think Hubbard is good or a con artist.

I have e mailed him this question but he did not answer.

Does anyone know. Just curious

Its my opinion that he is still very much a scientologist. However
this is something that may be inferred as he has not said so directly,
unless he has at an early stage of his blog, but even then one could
say " that was then this is now".

See his blog post below for example :-

http://www.mikerindersblog.org/gag-ii-auditors-made/

"NOT A SINGLE AUDITOR TRAINING COMPLETION. NOT EVEN LEVEL 0, LET ALONE A BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL."

He is indignant that auditor training is not happening. Its clear
that that is of concern to him. Note that he is continually getting
inside info from those still connected to the CO$ who are equally
indignant. He and they are not happy that auditor training is not
happening. One may infer that they are in favour of more auditors
being made.....and are thus scientologists.

He is indignant that the CO$ public are being fed bullshit stupid
PR, and rips apart such with deadly dry ironic humour.

His blog gets quite high alexa ratings,nearly the same as Tony
Ortega's, and much higher than CO$, and they co-operate quite often.
Karen de la Carriere also features regularly on Tony's blog. The three
of them are perhaps the most effective antagonists to the CO$. They
all use humour and factual matters in their war against CO$. Yes Karen
and Jeffery Augustine do also use satire in their skits which are non factual
but usually based on truth.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I can not figure out from Mike Rinder's blog if he is a Scientologist or not.

It seems to me that a lot of the people who post to his blog are Scientologists for sure. But he seems neutral. He is very much against DM but he does not really mention Hubbard at all.

He doesn't talk about the tech working, he simply talks about the crimes. he doesn't talk about using the tech or how grat it is nor does he talk against it.

I see pro Scientology people posting and also anti.

Does anyone know his position on Scientology as a "religion" or a science, or if he think "The tech works" Does he think Hubbard is good or a con artist.

I have e mailed him this question but he did not answer.

Does anyone know. Just curious

You are trying to define Mike Rinder's belief system as if it were a coat he puts on.

Mike has been a Scientologist his entire life (or at least from an early age) he joined the Sea Org very young. So I suspect that there are many things that he absorbed from his family (rather than studied) that he does not even realize are scientology based. It has been hard for me to separate out myself from the Sea Org indoctrination and I joined at 23 and was 'only' in for 13 years. Mike joined in his early teens and was in for nigh on 40 years. I doubt that he will ever sort it out.

I do admire him for working on it. It is tough.

To answer your question - I don't think Mike is a scientologist. Scientologists work full time trying to make Scientology popular, and to make everyone worship Hubbard and trying to make the world a fit place for scientology to rule.

Mike is not doing that.
 
Last edited:

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
you know, your question did get me thinking about something I had not considered.

Since getting out there have many times when my wife and I have sort of wondered why some of the dreck of scientology still hangs around in our lives? As I was writing my last answer to you I suddenly thought that there is an aspect to the indoctrination that I had not taken into account - the indoctrination that takes place from the environment we lived in. The talking, the conversations, the items of interest, the things we talked about what made others around us cheerful and what made them upset. and how much that influences the way we think.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
you know, your question did get me thinking about something I had not considered.

Since getting out there have many times when my wife and I have sort of wondered why some of the dreck of scientology still hangs around in our lives? As I was writing my last answer to you I suddenly thought that there is an aspect to the indoctrination that I had not taken into account - the indoctrination that takes place from the environment we lived in. The talking, the conversations, the items of interest, the things we talked about what made others around us cheerful and what made them upset. and how much that influences the way we think.

Absolutely, especially if you were younger. It was such a closed environment and it was 'normal' and also especially within a family. This is what I find with my siblings, most of whom were never really 'in'. They find it easier to use scientology concepts within the family, not realising it is actually not normal conversation. It's sort of a habit I guess. Not understanding the significance of those twisted concepts, they think they are not affected by scientology. Wrong. It's an uphill bloody battle when people don't even know. Get any of them talking freely and words like "invalidation, 3rd party, natter, overts" etc all come pouring out and they don't notice. :duh:
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think you'd first have to define "Scientologist" if you want to figure-out whether someone is one or not.

I remember someone asking Mike this on his blog not so long ago and his answer was that he doesn't use that label any more.

Therefore he doesn't call himself a Scientologist, that's for sure.

Also, if you follow his blog it seems to me that whenever someone says something good about Hubbard, Mike slaps him down.

But he may still believe in some parts of the tech. Who knows?
 

8-8008

Patron with Honors
Instead of trying to figure out if he is or not, ask him.

Send him a message on his blog :) Better to get him to answer that question.

I am not a Scientologist but I still believe in some stuff as It did help me and still helping me in some ways.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation


He may be keeping his cards close to his chest so as not to unnecessarily antagonise those that are still pro hubbard and scientology.

If so, I'm sure he would have valid reasons for doing that.


:yes:
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
...

"NOT A SINGLE AUDITOR TRAINING COMPLETION. NOT EVEN LEVEL 0, LET ALONE A BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL."

He is indignant that auditor training is not happening. Its clear
that that is of concern to him. Note that he is continually getting
inside info from those still connected to the CO$ who are equally
indignant. He and they are not happy that auditor training is not
happening. One may infer that they are in favour of more auditors
being made
.....and are thus scientologists.

This is simply your interpretation of what Rinder writes, especially your own inference (bolded RED ) I've noted above.

Just because he points out that the COS is completely off its own purpose and not doing what it claims (training auditors, auditing people) does not mean he is "indignant" about it, or "not happy." He could just as well be indifferent, disgusted, amused, or even VERY HAPPY AND ENTHUSIASTIC about the fact that the CoS is failing to do what it claims and is thus imploding, suiciding, cannibalizing its members, and soon to disappear.

If the COS were to suddenly turn around and start training auditors, lower their prices so average people could afford auditing, I personally can't see Rinder "celebrating" that and the subsequent push and promotion of the dreck into the greater society.

Dream on.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
"

I guess it comes down to how "Scientologist" is defined. If one were to use L Ron Hubbard's definitions, especially as they relate to the survival of "the group" then, most certainly, Mike Rinder is not a Scientologist. In fact, if L Ron Hubbard were alive today, Rinder would be hunted down for disposal without sorrow. He has committed all manner of Scientology "High Crimes", not the least of them being that he has demonstrated by his departure from "the group" that Scientology is not in the least bit workable in a positive sense because, if it was, the current situation would not exist. Where some confusion might arise as to Rinder's affiliation, perhaps the mangling of a truism will suffice: you can take the man out of Scientology but you can't always take the Scientology out of the man. As an analogy, I still use all manner of bush craft that I learned as a Boy Scout, does that mean I am a Boy Scout? Of course not.

In terms of labels, I'm wondering if those people who have left the cult but still call themselves Scientologists should be encouraged to differentiate between Scientology and the collection of those parts of the subject they still wish to practise. IMNSHO, a new term for these people needs to be adopted. Any suggestions?
 
Last edited:

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
. . .
Asked
of Mike Rinder on his blog [excerpt] :

When you were the main spokesperson, how did you handle press questions
about Ron’s promised return in 20-25 years to resume his work?

Mike Rinder says:
August 22, 2013 at 4:34 pm


I was never asked that question. I guess in some respects I believed that would be the case, though I never saw anything written by him that specifically stated that he would return in a different body, though there were certainly rumors about him having left instructions about how he could be identified. Perhaps they were true.

Do I think he has the capability of returning? Not in those terms. I believe that one lives for more than one life with more than one body. But the fact is, after this long, he has not “returned” as “Ron in a new body.”

And I place great credence in what Sarge said about the later years of his life.
There are simply too many other facts that align to the notion that he was NOT in fact in good shape and certainly was not “causatively discarding his body to continue research that would be hindered by a body.”

If this was the case, there would have been a LOT more detailed hat write ups and turnovers and farewell messages — even a film or video. A lot of things I took as “gospel” from the time I was young concerning the infallibility of LRH I no longer see that way. Including this idea that he could knowingly postulate a future body and identity and return with full recall of his last lifetime.


Asked of Mike Rinder on his blog [excerpt] :

What’s the back story? Why did management cover up LRH’s apparent failure
to deliver on many of his more hyperbolic OT promises . . . and from what I
can tell even achieve them himself? Why lie to all of us from 1986 on? Seems
like there was an enormous conspiracy of silence and a forwarding of a patently
untrue LRH mythology. The lies told were an unthinkable betrayal.

Mike Rinder says:
April 21, 2013 at 9:55 pm


Marty’s books and blog have covered this pretty extensively. There was a hidden data line inside the church too. I was not aware that these materials didnt exist until after I left.

Miscavige wanted them so he would have a carrot to hold out. But he also could NOT afford to say “Sorry folks, I know LRH said OT IX and X were ready and there was a Grade Chart with OT X1 to XV on it, but they don’t exist” as it would have caused a revolt. In order to maintain his position he has had to pretend to be fully in alignment with LRH and the ONE carrying out his wishes and intention. It has been a slow process to convince the masses that he is the new Messiah. And now it is valuable to him to appear to have something that people want but cannot have “yet” …

Bolding in passages above is mine.

If we're to take Mike and Marty's various statements over the years on good faith . . . that they did not learn about many of the "deep secrets and betrayals" until after they had left the COS and begun reading blogs, then we're left with a conspiracy of two: Pat Broeker and DM.

After 1988 or so, we're then left with a conspiracy of one: DM personally holding all the secrets close to his own chest.

Or so I've been told. :unsure: :unsure: :whistling:

ILove2Lurk
 

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
. . .
Asked
of Mike Rinder on his blog [excerpt] :

When you were the main spokesperson, how did you handle press questions
about Ron’s promised return in 20-25 years to resume his work?

Mike Rinder says:
August 22, 2013 at 4:34 pm


I was never asked that question. I guess in some respects I believed that would be the case, though I never saw anything written by him that specifically stated that he would return in a different body, though there were certainly rumors about him having left instructions about how he could be identified. Perhaps they were true.

Do I think he has the capability of returning? Not in those terms. I believe that one lives for more than one life with more than one body. But the fact is, after this long, he has not “returned” as “Ron in a new body.”

And I place great credence in what Sarge said about the later years of his life.
There are simply too many other facts that align to the notion that he was NOT in fact in good shape and certainly was not “causatively discarding his body to continue research that would be hindered by a body.”

If this was the case, there would have been a LOT more detailed hat write ups and turnovers and farewell messages — even a film or video. A lot of things I took as “gospel” from the time I was young concerning the infallibility of LRH I no longer see that way. Including this idea that he could knowingly postulate a future body and identity and return with full recall of his last lifetime.


Asked of Mike Rinder on his blog [excerpt] :

What’s the back story? Why did management cover up LRH’s apparent failure
to deliver on many of his more hyperbolic OT promises . . . and from what I
can tell even achieve them himself? Why lie to all of us from 1986 on? Seems
like there was an enormous conspiracy of silence and a forwarding of a patently
untrue LRH mythology. The lies told were an unthinkable betrayal.

Mike Rinder says:
April 21, 2013 at 9:55 pm


Marty’s books and blog have covered this pretty extensively. There was a hidden data line inside the church too. I was not aware that these materials didnt exist until after I left.

Miscavige wanted them so he would have a carrot to hold out. But he also could NOT afford to say “Sorry folks, I know LRH said OT IX and X were ready and there was a Grade Chart with OT X1 to XV on it, but they don’t exist” as it would have caused a revolt. In order to maintain his position he has had to pretend to be fully in alignment with LRH and the ONE carrying out his wishes and intention. It has been a slow process to convince the masses that he is the new Messiah. And now it is valuable to him to appear to have something that people want but cannot have “yet” …

Bolding in passages above is mine.

If we're to take Mike and Marty's various statements over the years on good faith . . . that they did not learn about many of the "deep secrets and betrayals" until after they had left the COS and begun reading blogs, then we're left with a conspiracy of two: Pat Broeker and DM.

After 1988 or so, we're then left with a conspiracy of one: DM personally holding all the secrets close to his own chest.

Or so I've been told. :unsure: :unsure: :whistling:

ILove2Lurk

THANKS for this. This is the kind of information that is really good to highlight and make available. As many times as needed for more people to see.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
This is simply your interpretation of what Rinder writes, especially your own inference (bolded RED ) I've noted above.

Just because he points out that the COS is completely off its own purpose and not doing what it claims (training auditors, auditing people) does not mean he is "indignant" about it, or "not happy." He could just as well be indifferent, disgusted, amused, or even VERY HAPPY AND ENTHUSIASTIC about the fact that the CoS is failing to do what it claims and is thus imploding, suiciding, cannibalizing its members, and soon to disappear.

If the COS were to suddenly turn around and start training auditors, lower their prices so average people could afford auditing, I personally can't see Rinder "celebrating" that and the subsequent push and promotion of the dreck into the greater society.

Dream on.

You know I think I understand where Mike is coming from on this. Because I have suffered from the same thing myself on occasion.

I have, in the past, been angry and pissed off when I have seen the CofS screwing things up. It's not that I wish them to succeed but I (at least in the past) had the vestige of the idea that by being such publicly stupid buttheads they were making my past choices look even worse than I thought they were.

I have noted that many XSO always think that things were good when they got in and less so as time permitted and now - well jeez they suck.

I have the sneaking suspicion that from the outside - it always sucked. It was always stupid and when we were in we were so dumb and enthusiastic we could never see it.

After all - I have seen people post about how tough/smart the GO was. But they were dumbasses who spent boatloads of cash and who managed to get their entire top echelon arrested and convicted including the wife of the founder. Hubbard and his "fleet" got kicked out of Corfu and Algeria, Scientology got banned in Victoria, scientologists banned from England, HUbbard convicted of fraud in France - christ the list is long and ignoble. And I guarantee that all of us "in" during those various times thought things were going well. Just to add - there were raids in Rome and Scientologists went to Jail, Madrid people jailed, Paris Verona, Malmo, (the 80's)

So I think maybe Mike is reacting to the reality being shoved in his face.
 

Cat Daddy

Silver Meritorious Patron
No

He wasn't one before Marty came to his conclusion but was a very good friend and a guy who deserves my respect

Marty is my bro, I recognized myself in him from the start.

Terril is my mate

I am glad Mike Rinder is out and that he is getting rid of his smuggness

Thank you

I can not figure out from Mike Rinder's blog if he is a Scientologist or not.

It seems to me that a lot of the people who post to his blog are Scientologists for sure. But he seems neutral. He is very much against DM but he does not really mention Hubbard at all.

He doesn't talk about the tech working, he simply talks about the crimes. he doesn't talk about using the tech or how grat it is nor does he talk against it.

I see pro Scientology people posting and also anti.

Does anyone know his position on Scientology as a "religion" or a science, or if he think "The tech works" Does he think Hubbard is good or a con artist.

I have e mailed him this question but he did not answer.

Does anyone know. Just curious
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
You know I think I understand where Mike is coming from on this. Because I have suffered from the same thing myself on occasion.

I have, in the past, been angry and pissed off when I have seen the CofS screwing things up. It's not that I wish them to succeed but I (at least in the past) had the vestige of the idea that by being such publicly stupid buttheads they were making my past choices look even worse than I thought they were.

I have noted that many XSO always think that things were good when they got in and less so as time permitted and now - well jeez they suck.

I have the sneaking suspicion that from the outside - it always sucked. It was always stupid and when we were in we were so dumb and enthusiastic we could never see it.
After all - I have seen people post about how tough/smart the GO was. But they were dumbasses who spent boatloads of cash and who managed to get their entire top echelon arrested and convicted including the wife of the founder. Hubbard and his "fleet" got kicked out of Corfu and Algeria, Scientology got banned in Victoria, scientologists banned from England, HUbbard convicted of fraud in France - christ the list is long and ignoble. And I guarantee that all of us "in" during those various times thought things were going well. Just to add - there were raids in Rome and Scientologists went to Jail, Madrid people jailed, Paris Verona, Malmo, (the 80's)

So I think maybe Mike is reacting to the reality being shoved in his face.

I pretty much agree with what you say here, except that even when I was in (rather short time compared to many here...) I thought things sucked. I could see that the promo didn't match the reality, that very little training and actual auditing was occurring compared to other bs that had us all running around half crazy, the franticness and fanaticism were weird, the prices were too high for an average person to ever be able to afford auditing, a disgracefully low number of "clears" and trained auditors were being made compared to all the money and energy expended, even back then (mid- and late-1970s), and "common sense" seemed to be completely absent.

Difference for me is that back then I thought it was because people were untrained or unable to realize that they weren't applying the dreck (particularly the admin dreck correctly) and that if the tech was "in" it would all straighten out...

... now I know that scientology did then and still does do exactly what it was designed to do: it makes people stupid and makes SOME people willing to be exploited all the way to their grave, sadly.

I still see that what the CoS SAYS is not what it DOES, but it doesn't make me "indignant" or hopeful for reform -- it makes me disgusted and hopeful for the end. Can't really know what Rinder is thinking, but you are probably right.
 
"

I guess it comes down to how "Scientologist" is defined. If one were to use L Ron Hubbard's definitions, especially as they relate to the survival of "the group" then, most certainly, Mike Rinder is not a Scientologist. In fact, if L Ron Hubbard were alive today, Rinder would be hunted down for disposal without sorrow. He has committed all manner of Scientology "High Crimes", not the least of them being that he has demonstrated by his departure from "the group" that Scientology is not in the least bit workable in a positive sense because, if it was, the current situation would not exist. Where some confusion might arise as to Rinder's affiliation, perhaps the mangling of a truism will suffice: you can take the man out of Scientology but you can't always take the Scientology out of the man. As an analogy, I still use all manner of bush craft that I learned as a Boy Scout, does that mean I am a Boy Scout? Of course not.

In terms of labels, I'm wondering if those people who have left the cult but still call themselves Scientologists should be encouraged to differentiate between Scientology and the collection of those parts of the subject they still wish to practise. IMNSHO, a new term for these people needs to be adopted. Any suggestions?

Redefined Products.
or.......
Linguistic Hostages.
or......
Wog World Reclamations.....shortened to Reclaims, for convenience
etc.....
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
Some of you said:
“You are trying to define Mike Rinder's belief system as if it were a coat he puts on.”

“I think you'd first have to define "Scientologist" if you want to figure-out whether someone is one or not.”

“Instead of trying to figure out if he is or not, ask him.”

_________________________


First of all I did private message him and he didn’t answer.

I would like to know where he is on that spectrum of anti Scientologist to full blown Kool aid drinker
  • Does he believe the OT3 BT story as a real event?
  • Does he think that the tech works if applied correctly and that the only reason that is doesn’t work is that you didn’t apply it correctly, or it is somehow a fault of your own.
  • Does he think that the promised results of Dianetis are attainable through the tech.
  • Does he think that Hubbard went to target 2.
  • Does he think that Hubbard had pure good intentions and was not in it for the money at all, just to help makind?
  • Does he think that with auditing you can achieve immortality?


To me if you can say yes to any of the above questions you are a Scientologist or at least a full on believer.

Middle of the road:​
  • You think that the tech can be helpful if applied correctly, but there is a lot that is not known about the mind or the spirit that is cannot be explained by Scientology.
  • Scientolgy is a self help system that can be helpful to various degrees and has some value.
  • KSW is not true
  • .


To me this person is not a Scientologist just an open minded person.


Anti-
Scientolgist:
Scientology is harmful and should be stopped; it is a total scam in every way.

I am sure there are various degrees in between all of that, but I wonder where he is on the scale. The reason I am is that from what I see he doesn't say much, but I know he is anti miscavge, but I am just curious as to how he really feels about scientology.
 

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
OK, I was really surprised at the thoughtfulness of this thread, kind of expected a pile on.

My thoughts:

1. Who cares? If he is working to make things right from his past, if working on becoming a solid member of society, build a family, if he is ... like so many ... working on a continual process of improvement and recovery, who cares?

2. Mirroring some of the comments above, what is a Scientologist? Three generations of my family were scientologists, almost a combined century of active involvement. I was born in. my children were born in. I can't say all of it was bad, but I can say that the sum of the benefit compared to the cost in everything from lost life, family relationships, time and money are far more extreme and destructive than any benefit. People born in like me, Rinder, etc ... how do we know where Scientology teachings or culture start and stop ... what is us ... our native personality and skill and what is the "teachings" and what is environmental conditioning?

3. I don't know any person out and decompressing or recovering that hasn't massively changed their perspectives, those few who try and hold on to the old ones seem to be struggling most in life. Public evolution like Marty and Mike have to be the most difficult because even though they may change and evolve, they are held to things they said in the past.

4. Mike is a personal friend, we last met a few weeks ago in the middle of Texas at some road side restaurant in some small town for dinner. We were driving opposite directions on different highways, and on a whim decided to detour a couple hundred miles for a quick chat and meal. I don't think we ever asked each other that question, well maybe 5 or 6 years ago we did. The question just doesn't seem relevant to any discussion we have.

5. Mick makes a comment that I have long believed is incredibly important ... the environmental impact, the cultural impact of the Scilon empire on us ... types of books we read, politics, type of friends we have, how we view ourselves, others, other jobs or people in different socioeconomic situations, etc. How do we respond to situations, stress, humor, problems, wins, etc. I don't know that we can separate this out so easily.

6. I don't know that I can define where my complete Scientology upbringing and experience starts and stops. I have recently become very involved in trying to work out ways to create educational/training programs to teach people stable careers in the environmental industry. A focus is where did I get my skill, I have often assumed it was based on SO experience. When trying to figure out how to duplicate this, I realized I got very little valuable skill from the SO, most of it came from my childhood, pre-15 working with my father, tinkering, fixing things, going with him to the factory he worked on the weekend and night shift, etc. I think it is quite difficult to understand honestly and unbiased ... what effect things had on us. What would we have been like if Scientology was never in our world? But then, I wouldn't have my children, born to a woman I met in the SO, my sister would not have her husband and children and current life, I wouldn't have my current work and career ... understanding it is an exercise in understanding both the game theory and chaos theory!
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
People born in like me, Rinder, etc ... how do we know where Scientology teachings or culture start and stop ... what is us ... our native personality and skill and what is the "teachings" and what is environmental conditioning?

It's not just people born in who have that issue.

I was only in for 15 years and I've struggled with this too.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Interesting thread!

I saw the first (obvious) glimmerings of Mike's impending apostasy back a few years ago when he and Marty did one of those folksy "gone fishing" videos where they were literally fishing and talking about the cult and COB. Some really interesting and entertaining anecdotes emerged even though much of the laid-back "we're just simple folk" was very "stagey" and contrived.

There was one very telling moment when Marty went off on a gleamy-eyed rant about how Miscavige was dramatizing a certain whole track implant. Mike was quietly letting him finish his "cognition" but that wasn't enough for Marty. He prodded Mike to get "agreement" on this fantastic discovery about COB's zillion year old implant--and all Mike could do was cringe and mutter "whatever".

"Whatever". Poignant moment.

That's when I realized that Mike was not on the same KSW train as Marty (was) or other Indies were. He had exposed his rare common sense and that little "whatever" was a bold highlighting of how uncomfortable and weird Hubbard's delusional sci-fi had become for him. At that moment, I saw Mike beginning to blossom into something quite a bit more "independent" than an Indie Scientologist. Not long after that Mike had his own website which is some really entertaining, insightful and bad-ass whistleblowing vs the cult and Scientology itself.

So, if I had to guess where Mike is on the scale of TOTAL SP to TOTAL KSW SCIENTOLOGIST, I'd say he is in transition. He ain't an outed Ex Scientologist and he ain't an Indie Scientologist either, really. Indies don't usually throw down entheta on L. Ron Hubbard and some of his unworkable or sociopathic "tech".

The best analogy I can give is someone's sexual identity. Sometimes someone is pure heterosexual, sometimes pure homosexual--and sometimes an exotic blend, such as when someone is hetero but still "curious" about experiencing sex with someone of the same sex (i.e. bi-sexual). Not having consummated the sexual fantasy, they would describe themselves as "Bi-Curious". In Mike's case, I'd call him "Sci-curious". He's almost a full tilt EX, but still a bit in the closet, teasing himself with a fantasy where Hubbard's tech might actually work.
 
Top