True religious freedom requires the psychological capacity to choose freely.

Cults install irrational fears of leaving that often operate below conscious awareness.

Cognitive dissonance traps members, rather than allowing them to doubt their group.

Clinicians must learn to distinguish religious phobias from organic anxiety disorders to avoid misdiagnosis.

You are standing in front of a door with no lock, no guard, and no chain. You desperately want to leave, and yet every cell in your body screams that walking out will bring catastrophe.

This is the lived reality of millions of people in highly controlling religions, cults, and coercive situations worldwide. Individuals in such situations are physically free to leave and yet feel psychologically trapped. Some defend such circumstances by invoking the right of religious freedom.

For context, in the United States, the First Amendment protects (among other rights, such as freedom of speech and of assembly) the right to hold any religious belief, free from interference.

However, the legal protection has always applied to beliefs, not necessarily to behaviors carried out in the name of those beliefs. For example, courts have banned rituals involving venomous snakes because of the deaths they cause.

And so, the question I pose is not whether a person is legally free to believe, but whether they are psychologically able to stop believing, and whether they can walk away without being consumed by terror.

Building the Psychological Cage

Psychological entrapment, rather than physical confinement, is the common method used by destructive cult groups to keep people in a group they want to leave.

Entrapment serves as an emotional prison: Someone who has thoughts of exiting becomes so emotionally overwhelmed by those thoughts that leaving becomes nearly impossible to consider. A similar dynamic operates in coercive partnerships: ear and coercion create multiple failed attempts at leaving, even in non-physically threatening situations.

In my clinical work, I describe this process as “phobia indoctrination,” creating an extreme fear of leaving or questioning the group by piggybacking it onto an existing fear. The phobia develops when the destructive group creates a strong narrative about horrific situations that will befall the person who leaves or defects. It is not a phobia that develops through lived experience but, rather, is created or utilized by the group to bring about a perpetual state of fear of leaving.

Members are taught to believe that departure will bring catastrophe, which can include the eternal loss of salvation, terminal illness, possession, and more. The specifics vary, but the result is a phobia so strong that leaving feels too dangerous.

Because the phobia can function beneath conscious awareness, the person may genuinely experience continued membership as their “free will” choice. They are not pretending, and they believe they are choosing to stay.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory, the observation that people feel psychological discomfort when holding contradictory beliefs and are driven to resolve it, helps explain why members may dig in rather than walk away.

Festinger studied the phenomenon firsthand in a 1950's cult, The Seekers, that prophesied they would be saved by aliens on doomsday. But when the date arrived and a UFO failed to appear, many members became more committed, not less. Their investment in the cult had been so extreme—many had sold their homes and quit their jobs.in anticipation of alien rescue—that they had to shift their beliefs to justify it: They argued that their faith had been so strong it saved the world.

A similar dynamic plays out in destructive groups every day. The more someone has sacrificed, the more painful it becomes to acknowledge. In such a situation, the mind doubles down, and critical thinking takes a big hit.

Cults exploit this knowledge by engineering escalating commitment early while ensuring that the sword of fear hangs over members. Members are often asked to increase their time demands and take on larger roles within the organization, especially when their leadership notices hesitation. Each new ask represents one new sacrifice by the member, a reminder of the consequences if they do not follow through, and a new way for them to justify their commitment.

Informed Consent and the Clinical Relevance

In ethical therapy, informed consent is the process of providing a client with enough information to freely choose whether to start treatment. It is a clear, nonnegotiable element of therapy that protects a client and ensures that they understand that therapy is a form of influence and involves an unequal power dynamic.

Informed consent explains such matters as mandatory reporting and confidentiality requirements. A therapist who withholds such information violates professional ethics.

Why isn't the same standard applied to religious recruitment? Many clergy (whether they realize it or not) are mandatory reporters, and they represent themselves in the community as wise, trustworthy people to come to in times of trouble. When destructive cult recruiters lie about who they are and what they want, they deny a person the information needed to make a free choice whether to engage in a process of influence.

True religious freedom requires what might be called “cognitive freedom." It should respect the right not to be deceptively manipulated and ensure the capacity to evaluate alternatives.

Such concepts have inherent relevance for those who eventually leave destructive cult environments. Former cult members frequently come to treatment with symptoms resembling anxiety disorders and identity disturbance. Clinicians who lack cult knowledge risk misdiagnosis or, worse, reinforcing the phobias the group installed.

A former member who experiences intense panic at the thought of criticizing their group is exhibiting a programmed response. Recognizing it as such can be the difference between effective healing and further harm.

I support the existence of structured or unconventional religious communities, as there is room in an open, pluralistic society. The question is whether a choice arises from informed, freely made commitments or from layered psychological pressures that make refusal feel impossible.

The questions that need asking are: Can cult members and our clients leave without fear? Do the psychological conditions exist for genuine choice? What are ethical ways to explore choice, while still holding the line for true freedom of belief?

Ultimately, we must recognize the element of control in defining the line between stated freedom and actual cognitive freedom, and between conscious spiritual expression and psychological imprisonment in the name of belief and faith.

© Psychology Today