Questions For OTs


Ordinary Human
I went through new ot 5. Waste of money. big con. I think that the ot levels are basiclly created by you as you read the data, then do it in clay, then go in and audit it. If you just grabbed your next door neighbor and tried any of the ot processes (for ex. OT5) there would be no effect. However, once a person has been conviced that this is his only chance for imortality, and he has paid, and paid and paid, and he has been hyped by friends, relatives, staff and events, he has done the whole bt & cluster stuff in clay, he has drilled it for hours on a doll, then it becomes real. and he does it.

I think that a person gets so screwed up and so convinced of these various lies, so devoted to lrh that after being in for a few years, one starts to feel less than complete as he hasn't done ot levels yet. he sells himself on how great they will be. then when he does the ot levels, he can't admit to himself how worthless it was, and he goes a long with everyone else saying how great etc.

You can't buy spirituality. There are many paths and many right answers. Look. Look.

since leaving the church, we often remark, "this book was better than the ot levels" or "that was better then the L's". This happens a lot, because there is a lot of data out there that is of much greater magnitude and benifit than the stuff lrh used on us.

What a sham. what a shame.
Yes, you get taught in great detail how to mock it up, and then go off to unmock it with a shoddy toolkit.


Patron with Honors

This is a fascinating comment!

Someone on ARS once said that he or she thought people got into Scn because they were spiritually lazy. I know that was true in my own case, even though I didn't get into Scn for the spirituality as much as the thought of improving my own mental health.

I've always felt that people get 'lost' and 'spiritually lazy' because they become mired in dogma. They put personal restrictions on religious ideas that limit their understanding. Example: I have one Christian friend who can't rise above the 'mechanics' of his own religion. The 'physics' of his Catholicism prevents him from seeing the universality of the multi-faceted (metaphoric if you like) story of Jesus' sacrifice. I have another Catholic friend who finds new ways to integrate the meaning in his religion daily. For him, it's a creative source. What you 'bring to the table' seems to have a lot to do with what you get out!

I'm not 'pitching' Christianity, but there's a magnificent universal message of charity and self sacrifice attached to that religion.

Judaism puts an emphasis on man's responsibility to understand God's purpose. That can mean many things, but ultimately, it concretizes a partnership between God and man to advance man's understanding. That's a beautiful universal message. I have Jewish friends who are not aware of it. They 'go through the motions' of the religion they were born without tapping the magnificent lessons of centuries of Rabbis.

What's the 'correct' religion? I don't know. But in my experience religions with sustainable validity are those that encompass a universal message that speaks to anyone and everyone.

Many miss those messages, because they become mired in the dogma and mechanics of religion. I've had countless experiences listening to Catholic and Jewish friends debate various doctrinal points, who completely miss the meta-meaning of their own religion!

In my experience the litmus test of a 'legitmate' religion is whether it contains or sustains itself on a universal idea or 'meta-meaning' that would be spiritually 'truthful' and ultimately convincing to anyone on the planet. Something above and beyond the doctinal 'mechanics' of the religion.

I think most of the major religions pass that test, despite being 'nit-picked' by the 'spiritually lazy' and self-appointed 'experts' determined to throw brick-bats and define the undefinable.

Last edited:


Since the early 1980s, all of Hubbard's handwritten "OT" levels have been around, and available, if one knows where to look. Much of the material for the old "OT" levels, above "OT 3," came from non-confidential 1950s stuff, and that, to a large extent, was derived from sources such as the Rosicrucians.

"Since the early 1980s" is almost 30 years. Where are the Scientology "OT"-level-produced "Operating Thetans"? Add ten years, going back to 1970, and that's 40 years. Were the only vague "OTs" Ingo Swann (who was a natural psychic, and had his first out of body experience with perception at age 5, or so), and a few others?

Hubbard wasn't "OT," apparently, and his "Guardian's Office" did not utilize "psychic spying" as one might think it would. When "NOTS" was released in the late 1970s, there was a collective sigh of relief (at the first announcement), as it was recognized widely that the old "OT" levels had been disappointing, to say the least.

One can choose to believe that Scientology was producing Scientology supermen with psychic powers right up to the late 1970s, when the Reptiods, Marcabians, Xenu, CIA, or whomever, began their take over of Mankind's Only Hope, but that notion contradicts reality.

There was a lot of enthusiasm, and people's natural psychic tendencies were sometimes stimulated, but, IMO, there were probably more "psychic" results obtained from the average "Comm Course" than from the Old (or New) "OT levels."

Much of the old and new "OT" level materials: OTs LEVELS.pdf