The  promotionalism  of  the  Findhorn  Foundation  presents  a  rather  glamorous  picture  of an alternative organisation  featuring  educational,  ecological,  and  spiritual  benefits, together  with  a  presumed expertise.  The downside  of  this  scenario  has  been  markedly unwelcome  and  extensively  repressed. The following  article  presents  some  of  the loss  in  context  that  has  occurred.

CONTENTS  KEY
2.1      Commercial   Workshops,  Grof  Therapy,  and  Dissidents
2.2      The   Deceptive  Priority  of  Economics
2.3      Spiritual   Work  as  Economic  Exercise
2.4      Debt,   Business   Enterprise,  and  CIFAL  Findhorn
2.5      New   Age   Buddhism
2.6      Trees  For  Life
2.7      Dissident   Kate  Thomas
2.8      Ongoing   Commercial   Workshops
                     

2.1     Commercial  Workshops,  Grof  Therapy, and  Dissidents

The  Findhorn  Foundation has presented an anomaly to close observers. That community has acquired NGO status and  promoted themselves as a centre for spiritual education and “transformation.” During the  1990s they established  the  Findhorn  ecovillage, a project which exists on the same territory as the Findhorn Foundation. The  ecovillage  became  the  focus  for  another  project  of  ecological associations.

In  2006, UNITAR endorsed what became known as CIFAL Findhorn. This decodes to  the twelfth CIFAL centre worldwide, existing for the purpose of ecological training programmes associated with the UN. The  glowing promotionalism  for  these  activities  has  been prodigious. So  why  is  there  such  a  mood of  reserve amongst the  critics?

Close analysis of these events has revealed some disconcerting factors. For one thing, the  ecological activities exist side by side with the commercial workshop programme of the Findhorn Foundation. This has been an ongoing means of income for many years, and has given  support to  many alternative therapists and other entrepreneurial entities  associated  with  what  is  now  known as “new spirituality.”

The doubtful agendas incorporated in the “workshops” are sold for noticeably high prices, and cater for an international clientele. The promotionalism for this long established programme strongly encourages an uncritical approach to the themes and practices being sold. These workshops frequently last for a week or so, and cost  on average several hundred pounds, the fee varying somewhat.

The commercial workshop programme has nothing to do with ecology (though a version of sustainability is represented). Critics dispute that this programme should be described in terms of spiritual education.  It amounts instead to an entrepreneurial form of fashion in “alternative” concepts. The format of the workshop programme bears strong resemblances to the commercial schedules maintained by the Esalen Institute in California.  Since the 1970s, the Findhorn Foundation has received many American guests, who transmitted the “alternative” conceptualism emanating  from  California.

Prior to the  1970s, the nascent Findhorn  Foundation   was   under the more exclusive influence of Peter and Eileen Caddy, whose situation on a caravan site caught the imagination of the late 1960s “new age” trend in Britain. In the  1970s, the Foundation commenced a phase of  expansion via property acquisition. Cluny Hill College in Forres became a  key venue, but  conventional  standards of  education did not apply. That college  was run as  a centre  for alternative therapy and related trends. This situation was glorified in terms of the so-called “holistic” experience claimed by the Findhorn  Foundation.

There  were  other  problems also.  The  Foundation acquired a severe economic deficit  during  the 1990s. The persistent  attempts to conceal  this flaw  lapsed in 2001, when a debt of  £800,000  was  publicly declared. Elaborate measures were taken to offset this drawback, including a proliferation of business enterprises that were nominally independent. The trend continues, with CIFAL Findhorn also being run as a separate business, namely CIFAL Findhorn Company Ltd. Close inspection of the community under discussion is similar to charting a business combine with  different  faces  all  having  the  same  head.

While under the long shadow of undeclared economic malaise, the Findhorn Foundation became an NGO in 1997. Exactly how they achieved this became a matter for local speculation. They were deriving income from dubious commercial workshops even while accumulating  a  debt  that soon  led  to  the mortgage  of Foundation properties. The Findhorn Foundation College was born amidst the overdraft anomalies, and was another exercise  in  holistic  claims  that  are  deemed  superficial elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the fabled “eco-houses” were appearing in the new ecovillage. The price of these dwellings became expensive, and it was locally said that only affluent persons could afford the luxury abodes. The ecovillage was also run on business lines, and there is no doubt that profits were involved for the entrepreneurs. Yet the promotionalism  gave the impression of an ecological utopia deserving of UN patronage.

Dissidents were unwelcome to the point of exclusion.  In 1996, only a year before the acquisition of NGO status, a book was published in Forres  that  aroused  the  wrath of  the Foundation staff. The dissident book was unofficially banned. The blockade was confirmation of the unyielding managerial attitude to dissident views and complaints. Democracy was something generally assumed within the Foundation, but in practice was a long way off. The  reality  did  not   match  the  sentiments  in  vogue.

The dissident book was entitled Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation. The author was Stephen Castro, a resident of Forres  who had for seven years witnessed the discrepancies prevalent in the expanding community commenced by  the  Caddys in 1962. This annotated work contrasted with the enthusiast literature favoured by the management, whose publishing arm set great store in simplistic partisan accounts  and  the  “God Spoke  to  Me” output  of  Eileen Caddy.

Hypocrisy and Dissent  reveals an authoritarian regime who were customarily evasive on the subject of local dissidents. Trustees, management, and staff were all dismissive of  problems on their doorstep, despite their constant claim of expertise in conflict resolution. Above all, the hierarchy could not accept criticism of their  policies, even when such policies involved blatant injustices. The favoured recourse was repression and stigma. This was the new age of “holistic” achievement and entrepreneurial “spirituality.”

The Castro book met two distinct fates. In 2001 it was favourably reviewed by ICSA and recognised by some academics as a valid stand against bad management and dictatorial strategy.  Yet within the Foundation, that book was continually maligned and  made the subject of a dismissive internet stigma of 2002. The Foundation management chose  to favour a statement, from a zealous supporter, that  the dissident  book  was “not worth  reviewing.”

Chapter six of Hypocrisy and Dissent  is particularly relevant  to the commercial workshop programme of the Foundation. This  chapter describes events attendant upon the sponsorship of  Grof Transpersonal Training Inc. within the  community  during  the  years  1989 to 1993. Stanislav  Grof  was  a former prominent resident of the Esalen Institute, where he had improvised Holotropic Breathwork as a commercial  therapy. Grof  was also  an influential  advocate  of LSD  “therapy,” which  had  become illegal.

Grof had undertaken many LSD sessions, and was furthermore actively involved in  MDMA “therapy” before  this too  became illegal in the 1980s. MDMA is popularly known as “Ecstasy.” Grof remained  a staunch partisan of the drugs LSD and MDMA, and yet he became unwisely  celebrated at the  Findhorn  Foundation  as  an  expert  in psychology and  spirituality.

At the Foundation workshops, Holotropic  Breathwork  was observed to create serious problems for some clients, including “screaming, vomiting, hysterics,” and also hallucinatory experiences plus unpleasant aftermath symptoms such as disorientation.  Yet the management  was  strongly resistant  to due criticisms of  the Breathwork, especially as  the  Foundation  Director (Craig  Gibsone)  had become a practitioner of this exercise  in hyperventilation.

Holotropic  Breathwork  was  eventually suspended due to a recommendation from the Scottish Charities Office, which in 1993  duly  acted upon a  negative  report  from the Pathology Dept of  Edinburgh University. Despite the official  warning, Craig Gibsone and other  Foundation  personnel subsequently perpetuated the controversial therapy in a “workshop” setting.  This  tendency  has  been  the  subject of complaints. Gibsone became  a leading celebrity of  the  ecovillage, where standards  of  conduct  leave  much  room for  improvement.

A major critic of  Holotropic  Breathwork  was Kate Thomas, a local dissident and eyewitness who was effectively outlawed by the Foundation management. She was proven correct in her  reservations concerning Grof therapy, but instead of duly conceding  this factor, the  Foundation  hierarchy continued to stigmatise her  for independent views. They  created  acute  distortions of her complaint at their unjust policy in her direction. Their tyranny is indicated by a recent document of Kate Thomas, which theFoundation  has so  typically ignored. See the Letter  of Kate Thomas to  UNESCO  (2007).    

Other responses to the Letter to UNESCO were of a different kind entirely. A copy was despatched to the Hon. Tom Sackville, Chairman of FAIR, who sent a sympathetic reply dated 1/10/2007.  Sackville transpired to be critical of the Findhorn Foundation. A former MP, Sackville had been an official in the Home Office, though he had become very critical of British government lethargy in relation to malfunctioning organisations. Acting upon advice  from  the Chairman of FAIR, Thomas subsequently contacted her local MP, who proved sympathetic to her case (see 2.7  below).

Meanwhile, occurrences such as Grof  therapy are glossed over by the Findhorn Foundation publicity tactic. Critics  refer  to ongoing Foundation  promotionalism  and  “workshops” as   a form of miseducation that causes  widespread  confusion  amongst  susceptible subscribers. Such matters are treated at more length in my recent and critical  webpage Findhorn Foundation  Commercial  Mysticism (2008).

2.2    The  Deceptive  Priority  of  Economics

In 2006, complaints were addressed to UNITAR about the proposed CIFAL centre in Moray. The suitability of the Findhorn Foundation as the location for this public service training centre was strongly contested by three  critics of the Foundation, including a retired accountant living in Scotland.  There was no reply from UNITAR, a fact which caused further alarm. Official plans and decisions evidently considered public complaints irrelevant.

An elaborate screening process was in occurrence.  The major fulcrum for this was Moray Council, who had recently decided that economic prospects were strong in relation to the new CIFAL centre. That council refused to acknowledge a circular of complaint that was sent out to relevant persons in June 2006.  Moray Council were anxious to push through the new plan without any obstruction to their aims, and in September 2006 they gained success by finalising the scheme for CIFAL Findhorn, in collaboration with UNITAR and the Findhorn Foundation. The local Forres newspaper reported that a “deal” had been signed in Geneva between those three parties.

UNITAR is the abbreviation for United  Nations Institute for Training and Research. That organisation is based in Geneva, and has been accused of inadequate research into the Findhorn Foundation, who have been glorified by the official strategies ignoring public complaints.

Reference  here  to  certain  correspondence  in  2007  is  pressing. John P. Greenaway wrote a letter  dated 26/03/2007 to Nicol Stephen MSP. This communication  gave  relevant  information  about   matters  relating to  the Findhorn  Foundation and the UN.  In March 2006,  the  prospective CIFAL project  was  promoted in the local press of Moray, and subsequently received a supporting majority vote from Moray Council in the ratio of 13-5.  Later, the  construction  of  a  £1 million CIFAL  training centre was  formally announced (and embellished  in  some   reports). 

In the face  of  this  official  support, Greenaway  and other critics  had  pointed out the disparity involved in the accounting discovery that “for well over a decade, the Findhorn Foundation, a registered charity, has been running a covert fund, probably mostly invested in property, for the benefit of its leading affiliates. This amounts to approximately  £1 million, over and above its publicly revealed assets of  £2 million approx.” Greenaway  continues:  “I  am  informed that, back  in  2002, this analysis was accepted by the Financial Services Authority in London, but  the FSA did not have  the power  to  act.”

Furthermore, “widespread  local  negative perceptions of the  Findhorn Foundation  were reported to Dr. Winifred Ewing [MSP], who was a parliamentary representative for  Moray  for  29  years  until  her  final retirement  in  May  2003.”  In 2002,  Dr. Ewing alerted three other parliamentarians who were billed to speak at Foundation conferences. She informed them that the true state of affairs included financial irregularities, exploitive prices, extensive deceit and manipulation, and  the dangerous  ongoing  therapy known  as Holotropic  Breathwork.

Those three  politicians  then  decided  not to attend the conferences. Their identities  were  Rhona  Brankin  MSP,  Michael  Meacher  MP,  and  Mo  Mowlam  MP.  Greenaway adds that Dr. Ewing  never changed her mind about the organisation under discussion, and she was still writing on that subject in 2006,  admiring  the perseverance  of  a critic  like  himself.

Both  Westminster and  Holyrood  failed to  act  on  the  critical  medical  reports available about  Holotropic Breathwork  (HB).  Although  that  high  risk “therapy” was  dropped from the  Foundation  programme in 1994, HB continued to be dispensed on a private basis in this organisation. Furthermore, a group of influential Foundation personnel “began  to conduct annual HB workshops every autumn” at the Foundation-associated  venue of Newbold  House  in  Forres.

This defiance of medical warnings continued  until  2005, after  which  renewed  official  concern acted as  a  deterrent.  The  key  HB presenter was  Craig  Gibsone. Yet discrepantly,  he and  his wife have been described as “the leading link throughout between the Findhorn Foundation and the UN, mostly via Dr. Pierre Weil in Brazil” (Greenaway epistle cited).  The anomalies  and  lunacies of this  situation  have  been obvious  to critics.

Greenaway dates to circa 1996  the Foundation process of  revamping into smaller units. The  trend  of  apparently   independent  projects “disguises  connections with the parent body, and makes  it easier for Foundation connected concerns to successfully  apply  for  Scottish  Executive  or  EU  grant  aid  or Lottery  money”  (epistle  cited).  This  trend  has  been  described  as  an  economic  deception.

The same  informant  raised the question of why Scotland could not run a national ecological training centre, either alone or in partnership  with  England, thus bypassing the Findhorn Foundation problem. The relevant letter  was  mediated  via  Nicol Stephen  to  a  presiding  official.

The Scottish Minister for Environment, Michael Russell MSP, sent a response to Nicol Stephen MSP dated June 2007. To quote here from that letter:

“Your constituent expressed concern about the suitability of the Findhorn Foundation as the location for a public-service training centre and asks why Scotland cannot run its own, similar centre. Decisions on the location of CIFAL centres rest entirely with the relevant UN agency having due responsibility for training issues, namely UNITAR, and it is to them that your constituent should address their concerns in the first instance. The Scottish Executive welcomes the establishment of the centre in Moray, and both the Moray Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise Moray are supportive of the development of the CIFAL centre. Indeed, HIE have assessed that a CIFAL facility located in Findhorn has the potential to bring additional economic benefits to Moray over and above those they have identified as flowing from the Findhorn Foundation.”

This quotation demonstrates something of what critics had been complaining about and still are. There was no recognition by the Scottish Executive of prior events, and the  assessment in terms of economic benefits remains shallow and  unconvincing to those with a larger compass of information than is afforded by bureaucratic convenience. The shallow pursuit of economic interests is an ingrained feature of contemporary politics, and one that so frequently curtails educational  events and creates confusion about  due  priorities.

Michael Russell also referred to concerns about accounting practice which had been raised in relation to the Findhorn Foundation.  The mode of dismissal is here memorable:

“I am not aware of any irregularities in accounting practice which give grounds for concern. I note also that HIE (Highlands and Islands Enterprise)  Moray has been made aware of these concerns in the past, and by the correspondent’s own admission responded to the effect that a copy of a critical analysis of accounting practices at the Findhorn Foundation was not relevant.”

Was anything here being unduly dismissed or uninvestigated? According to the critics, the political support for economic interests had seriously obscured the record.

The constituent referred to in the above-quoted  letter  was the author of a book on the Findhorn Foundation, a man closely familiar with many events in the far north, being an inhabitant of Aberdeen. John Paul Greenaway gained a degree in law at Hull University, and later became a civil servant.  He had intermittent contact with the Findhorn Foundation during the years 1974-1992, and is classifiable as a dissident. He wrote an informative reply to letters from Nicol Stephen, the MSP for Aberdeen South. The major Greenaway epistle is dated  16/09/2007, and this took exception to some statements made by Michael Russell MSP in the above-quoted letter.

Greenaway reiterates in his epistle to Stephen that he had in fact addressed his concerns to UNITAR, and more specifically, to Marcel  Boisard, the  Executive Director of UNITAR. His lengthy letter of July 2006 to Boisard had not gained any response. To make quite sure of receipt, Greenaway had even sent a follow-up copy, which likewise did not receive acknowledgment.

Furthermore, a retired accountant of Moray had submitted to Boisard a copy of a significant analysis of Findhorn Foundation accounts. “This reveals a £1 million hidden fund, verified by the FSA (Financial Services Authority) in London.”  The accountant was named in the letter to Nicol Stephen, but otherwise wishes to remain anonymous. That accountant had sent a covering letter to Boisard, along with his analysis. Disconcertingly, there was again no reply, not even an acknowledgment. The analysis of accounts was also sent to Nicol Stephen, who had duly responded.

Greenaway also mentions that  a  third communication was sent to Boisard, this time from myself, and one receiving exactly the same indifferent treatment.  In fact, Boisard was a major recipient of my Letter to the Home Office – About  the Findhorn Foundation  and  UN (2006).That lengthy circular achieved two versions, the first being despatched to the Home Office and the amplified sequel having a cc. list which included many members of Moray Council. The latter contingent notably furthered the tactic of evasive non-response for which UNITAR is now notorious in Britain. The expanded Letter to the Home Office can be found at www.citizeninitiative.com/findhorn_foundation_&_un.htm.

The epistolary account of  Greenaway  continues to fill in important details ignored by the Scottish Executive and their commercial inspirers. He starts with the significant detail that in 2002, Dr. Winifred Ewing MSP had written to the Dept of Public Information (DPI) at the UN headquarters in New York.  The Findhorn Foundation continually invoked the DPI as a source of legitimation. Dr. Ewing accordingly requested information from the DPI as to how the Findhorn Foundation had managed to obtain the various UN affiliations that were commercially advertised.  Dr. Ewing received no response from the DPI, indeed not even a formal  acknowledgment of her very relevant enquiry.

The convergent negligence in  communications  protocol of the DPI, UNITAR, and Moray Council has aroused comment.  The failing has recently been described in terms of the deficient apparatus of a semi-literate and high-handed bureaucracy whose decisions and mandates are in very strong query. However, that reflection does not appear in the Greenaway epistle, which  maintains polite format throughout. Greenaway does, however, make the pertinent point that UNITAR policy resembles a “bureaucratic autocracy”  in the absence of a more desirable regulatory procedure which should “take soundings from the local and broader community.”

Dr. Winifred Ewing was a parliamentary representative for Moray and the Highlands for 29 years until her retirement in 2003. Her  complex  political career  commenced  in  1967.  She  was  the  first  female MP in the  Scottish National  Party, and acted as President of the SNP during the years 1987-2005. In May 1999 she chaired the first session of the Scottish Parliament. Dr. Ewing had a senior position to Angus Robertson MP and (the late)  Mrs Margaret Ewing MSP, both of whom are associated with furthering the CIFAL Findhorn project in nascent stages. Greenaway urges that Robertson and Margaret Ewing failed to communicate  to UNITAR  the strong reservations  of  Dr. Winifred Ewing  about the Findhorn Foundation. Margaret Ewing (d. 2006) was the daughter-in-law of Dr. Ewing, and MSP for Moray.

Greenaway refers to a lengthy conversation he had with Dr. Ewing at her home in January 2002. She then told him how she had received “innumerable complaints” about the Findhorn Foundation over the years from her constitutents.  She also expressed her own strong aversion to the Foundation, based upon reports and experiences. Greenaway also states that he has “a considerable file of letters from Dr. W. Ewing through nearly four years which substantiate her view.”

Grievances have arisen over the enthusiastic and uncritical sponsorship of the Findhorn Foundation by two relative newcomers, namely Angus Robertson MP and Richard Lochhead  MSP.  The point is made by Greenaway that if Dr. Ewing had been consulted, the CIFAL project in Findhorn could not have gone ahead with any due justification. The changes in local opinion have been attributed to the activities of Robertson, who is implied as a convert to Foundation ideology, and who has been in close association  with controversial  Foundation  celebrities.

Greenaway strongly questions abilities of assessment in the support faction for the Findhorn Foundation. To quote from his letter:

“Where in the array of support for this CIFAL Centre is there anybody (a) with accounting qualification up to Chartered Accountant or equivalent?  (b) with long years experience of accounting, particularly in the use of techniques for detecting fraud? (c) who, possessed of  a and b, has actually examined the Findhorn Foundation accounts, as Mr. -------- has done?” [This reference is to the accountant in Moray].

Greenaway informs that what has been proffered instead by Findhorn Foundation supporters  is “the ludicrous ‘Economic Impact Assessment’ (EIA) commissioned by HIE (Highlands and Islands Enterprise), by an ‘economist’ about whom we know nothing, including nothing about his prior relationship with the FF and its conditioning workshops (examined in several book exposes). This so-called ‘EIA’ is full of implicit value judgments which are political in nature.”

The HIE has been described  as the economic development agency of the Scottish Government. Yet there have been reservations, and the  Moray branch has acquired a  poor reputation amongst critics. That situation was not remedied when, in 2003, the HIE Chairman refused to provide the professional accountant in Moray with a copy of the full EIA. This accountant was the same man whose analysis was accepted by the Financial Services Authority in London. 

Greenaway further comments:

“So much for the ‘open government’ as interpreted by HIE !  Behind a smokescreen of fashionable terminology, HIE are still stuck in the old ‘sub rosa’ groove. HIE has made only a shortened version of this EIA available to the public.”

Suspicions attaching to the maneovre known as Economic Impact Assessment  are pronounced, implying an instance of the propagandist tendency noted to be at work in the Findhorn Foundation for many years. Glowing portrayals of Foundation expertise and achievement have invited strong repudiation from those well informed about the internal tactics of Foundation celebrities and their ideological agenda.

Following up his critical reservations, John Greenaway provides significant information. He asks in his letter: “What is ‘support’ from Moray Council and HIE worth?”  The  answer he  supplies is  relevant to quote here in full:

“On Feb. 8, 2006, ‘Audit Scotland,’ an official body of the Scottish Executive, issued a damning report on the general competence of successive Moray Councils through the period 1996-2004. (I have given some further detail on page 7 of my letter to Mr. Boisard, UNITAR, copied herewith.) In August 2007, as reported in local Moray Press, Audit Scotland stand by their damning assessment.  HIE, and particularly its local Moray version, has not been a respected organisation either. Please see my account, on pp. 5 and 6 of my letter to Boisard, of serious criticisms of HIE from economist Tom Mackay, and from EU auditors.”

It is reasonably evident that the discrepancies in the CIFAL Findhorn general situation are sufficient to arouse strong caution, and merit critical scrutiny rather than facile acceptance. A further reason for caution is the fluency of tactic on the part of politicians.

Nicol Stephen MSP duly reported  to Michael Russell MSP the substance of concerns raised by  John Greenaway. Russell replied to Nicol in a letter dated November 2007. That reply was rather more guarded than the former commentary from the Minister for Environment, but is considered to have been disappointing by critics of the Findhorn Foundation.  After three opening  lines of formality, the second and final paragraph read as follows:

“I have little to add to my reply to you from June this year about previous correspondence from Mr. Greenaway in which he raised a number of concerns in connection with the training centre at Findhorn. The matters which Mr. Greenaway raises are ones which he would be best advised to pursue directly with those to whom his points are addressed, namely UNITAR, the local authority and enterprise company,the named individuals in his letter, and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. I note that Mr. Greenaway has already taken steps to contact some of the parties mentioned above, and while it is unfortunate that he has not received a response to his questions, that approach would appear to be the appropriate course of action.”

Commentaries  on  this  episode  should be duly critical of  the  Scottish  Executive.  The  “appropriate course  of action”  is  so  often  contradicted  in  contemporary  British  political  circles.  Excuses  for sanctioning inappropriate  situations  are  too  frequently  improvised.  Some  critics  say  that  too  many politicians  and bureaucrats  make  the  wrong  decisions  at  the  public  expense.  All  that  really  counts,  in too  many  cases, seems  to  be  economics  and  salary,  which  has  been  the  basic  pursuit  of  the Findhorn  Foundation managerial  elite,  to  judge  from  much  of  the  data  afforded.  

It  has  proved  impossible  to  contact  UNITAR,  whose  degree  of  irresponsibility  towards  public complaints is not admirable.  The local authority  (Moray Council) and enterprise company  (HIE) in Moray are regarded as a  joke by  critics.  Nor does OSCR  (Office  of  the  Scottish  Charity  Regulator) command any deep respect amongst close observers.  Greenaway did refer to this administrative body in his informative epistle, asking  what  had happened  to  the  formerly  envisaged  investigation of Findhorn Foundation accounting by OSCR.  Greenaway states  that  the  Investigations  Officer  Thomas Thorburn,  of  Dundee, had commenced such an investigation, “acting  under  new  powers  emanating from  the  new  Charities  (Scotland)  Act.” Greenaway asked  if  this investigation  had  ceased,  and  if  so, why ?

OSCR communication has been considered less than perfect. In my own case, an exchange of letters in 2006 with Senior Investigations Officer Thomas Thorburn confirmed that  the  Findhorn Foundation had categorically denied hosting Holotropic Breathwork in recent years. This denial was transparent as a facesaver, but OSCR failed to follow up relevant cues and indeed failed to reply to the second letter I sent to Thorburn dated December 2006.

Thus, OSCR also fell in line with the precedent of evasion set  by  the Findhorn  Foundation  and UNITAR. The  new Charities and Trustee Investment Act 2005 was effectively meaningless in such bureaucratic situations of inertia. The diverse implications have been considered alarming. See my Letters to Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator .

2.3      Spiritual  Work  as  Economic  Exercise

The  Scottish  Executive  effectively  buried  the  accounting  anomaly  discussed  above  in  relation  to  the Findhorn  Foundation.  However,  that  matter  did  receive  published  mention  in  my  book  Pointed Observations (2005),  pp.  383-5,  note 175.  It  is  there  stated  that  the  relevant  document  was  entitled  A Financial  Appraisal of  the  Findhorn  Foundation,  and  had  been  accepted  by  the  Financial  Services Authority  in  London.  “The details  pertain  basically  to  the  1985-95  period, though with some  reference to the few years succeeding.”

The  disconcerting  details  found  in  A  Financial  Appraisal  include  a  disclosure  made  in  1992  which provides a  significator  of  the  general  trend.  The  Foundation then  admitted  that  the  net  worth  of their company known as New Findhorn Directions  (NFD)  had  fallen  from  £99,100  to  £21,000.  The Foundation is said to have increased  loans  to  this  company  as  the  risk  of  insolvency  increased, a fraught situation implying that NFD  directors  risked  the  potential  loss  of  savings  deposited  by  their adherents. The Financial  Appraisal  urges that such measures would normally be considered a misuse of funds.

The  same  document  duly  states  that  “the  entire  management  team  resigned”  after the  Findhorn Foundation profits  had  dwindled  significantly  between  1995  and  1997.  The new management team likewise failed to stop the escalating debt, but  all  such  details  are  omitted  by  the  official sponsorship of the controversial community,  who  spell  “economic  benefits”  to  political  parties  in  strong contention.

The Financial Appraisal names the members of the new management team who took  ineffective  “control” in the late 1990s. The three most well known of these personnel are Alex Walker, Eric Franciscus, and Robin Alfred.

Alex Walker is strongly associated with  New Findhorn Directions, having been the managing director of that enterprise. He insisted that “a major task is to marry business and spirituality,” a theme evocative of the “Spiritual Businessman” role attributed to  Francois Duquesne, who had been the Foundation leader in the early 1980s after the retirement of Peter Caddy. (See Carol Riddell, The Findhorn Community, 1991, pp. 223, 269ff., 88-9). Walker cultivated  the  long-term profile  of  a  management consultant.

Published in 1994,  Alex Walker’s edited work entitled The Kingdom Within served to screen out the ongoing economic deficit, providing a glorifying view of the Findhorn Foundation, as is indicated by the sub-title  A Guide to the Spiritual Work of the Findhorn Community. The consequences of “Spiritual Work” and “Spiritual Business” led to the debt of £800,000, a very big deficit for such an alternative community as the Findhorn Foundation, which began life on a caravan site in the 1960s. The debt was not declared until 2001, by which time it was obvious that the new  management  team  had  failed.

The presumed “spiritual work” is viewed by critics as an exercise in economic gains and losses.  The insidious promotionalism encouraged by Walker and other Foundation celebrities has presented  the Findhorn Foundation  in such glowing terms as “demonstrating a way of life in conscious co-operation with God.” Another exalted description favoured by this organisation was “a centre of spiritual service in co-creation with nature.” A description favoured in 2005 was “a centre of spiritual education.” There has been an elaborate promotion of  NGO status associated with the UN Department of Public Information,  who were repeatedly invoked over the years by the “intentional community.” They currently describe themselves as "a unique spiritual community" (2009).

Taking cover behind such designations, the Findhorn Foundation have continued an extremely evasive policy in relation to dissidents and critics, who do not exist in the high-flown surfeit of  glowing descriptions. The case of KateThomas is particularly graphic. See 2.7 below and article 1 on this website.

The  mood  of evasion is  contagious.  Eric  Franciscus  was  one  of  the  management personnel  notorious amongst  dissidents. He  gained  the reputation of a  dictatorial  bully, and  his very revealing conversation with the dissident Kate Thomas  is  preserved  intact on a tape recording dating  to 1994. The  verbal  and behavioural excesses of  Franciscus  were amongst  the drawbacks mentioned in a critical account that was submitted in the form of a complaint  to  another  organisation  closely associated with  the Findhorn Foundation.

The so-called Scientific and Medical  Network  (SMN) are known to  have encouraged  the assimilation of  Findhorn Foundation subscribers  and concepts, especially via the Wrekin Trust Forum (University for Spirit Forum), a body which is likewise intimately related to David Lorimer, who  has the widespread repute  of  being  an  impresario  of  “alternative”  conferences  and  workshops.

My  document  entitled  Letter  of  Complaint  to  David  Lorimer  (2005)  was  sent  out  as  a  circular  in  2006. That was  a  fairly  lengthy  epistle.  Lorimer  failed  to  reply,  as  did  all  but  one  of  the  other SMN members specified in  the  cc.  list.  Observers  grasped  that  the  Findhorn  Foundation  meant  a  source of revenue to the SMN, an economic  priority  precluding  any  ethical  scruple.  The SMN are  an “alternative  science” organisation whose performance  is  handicapped  by  an  indifference  to  pressing matters  of  scruple.

Lorimer  and  other  members  of  the  SMN  are  enthusiastic  about  themes  like  “near death  experience.” Critics say  that  such  themes  are  no  excuse  or  justification  for  failure  to  extend due responses in the epistolary dimension.  There  are  too  many  pastimes  of  exchequer  value  in  the activities and outreach of such evasive organisations.  See  further  the  Letter of Complaint to David Lorimer (2005). 

2.4     Debt,  Business  Enterprise,  and  CIFAL  Findhorn

Long before 2001, the Findhorn Foundation had failed dismally in their proclaimed economic prowess. The replacement  management  team  at  first  gave the impression that the problems had been rectified. A superficial strategy was used to preserve the propagandist image of inviolability, more especially because  NGO  status  was achieved  in 1997. 

Local  observers  like Dr. Winifred Ewing  MSP were  very sceptical  of  how  such  a  distinction  had  been achieved. The details were very  difficult  to penetrate. The smooth  promotionalist  jargon  gave  the impression that NGO status was  a  natural outcome of  great holistic achievements. The  economic malaise  was  carefully concealed from public view. The UN Department of Public Information became the major publicity prop for the imagined prowess  that was  effectively  bankrupt and so heavily supported by donations.

In 2001 the duplicit  image  was  shattered. The  extensive  debt  of  £800,000  was  now  impossible  to conceal. This  would  represent  a  small  sum  to  a  large  organisation, but  the  Foundation  had  never become an economic  giant. Lost  to open view, though well known to dissidents, was the influential factor of an increased salary structure that  was  so  very much  desired  by  the  new “executive” personnel. In former times, the Foundation staff had lived on pittances, a dearth possibly more suited to their proclaimed spiritual expertise that was doubted by critical  observers. 

Yet  Director  Craig Gibsone  changed  this  situation irreversibly at circa  1990. Not only did  Gibsone tenaciously sponsor  Grof Transpersonal Training Inc., but he  also  wanted  an  income that  more resembled the  Grof  purse than anything evocative of renunciate values. Gibsone  toyed  with  Mahayana Buddhism, but  was  never  a world-renouncing  monk.

Dissidents  have  expressed  the  view  that   the economic malaise was in part caused by  the desire  of Foundation  staff  for  increased  salaries; these  innovations soaked up funding, but  were  consonant with the capitalist  agenda  of  such  an  influential  management  consultant  as  Alex  Walker.  In  this extreme “old age” atmosphere,  the hapless  communal  assets  of  the Findhorn Foundation were privatised during the 1990s. Such factors  contributed  to  an  axis  of operation  that was in no way different from the prevailing capitalism in the outside world. The sphere  of “spiritual business” was geared  to  balance  sheets, revenues,  donations, and  the annual  commercial programme of misleading “workshops” in pop-mysticism and  alternative  therapy.

Another  form  of  commercial  activity  was  invented  in the form  of “eco-houses.” Critics say  that  this subject was invested with  elaborate  mythologies  serving  to  conceal  much  of  what  was  really happening.  The “ecovillage”  concept  can  easily be distorted and  even abused. In 1997 the neighbouring territory known as Dunelands  was  purchased by a number of Foundation members. The new acquisition of land adjoined  the location  known  as The  Park (near Findhorn village), where  the Universal Hall was situated. Dissidents have said rather pointedly that the investors made the most of  this  expansionist opportunity.

Even some  Foundation members were  puzzled  by  the  soaring  prices  of  “eco-houses” over  the years. Yes, these dwellings certainly did have features that can be identified with the ecological incentive. However, they were also part of a commercial trend that catered to affluent subscribers who were not necessarily always well informed about what was supposedly in progress. It  was observed, for instance, that people  who  purchased eco-houses tended  to  want  a  substantial  return  upon  resale. There are now over fifty  of  these  dwellings, varying from  the basic   "barrel houses”  to  rather  more elaborate abodes that have been compared to a luxury housing estate. While simplicity is an apparent keynote of the former, a degree of affluence hallmarks the latter.

The commercial overtones of the buzzword “sustainability” became notorious amongst  critics.  Craig Gibsone was  a  major  innovator  in this  direction, presiding over  commercial “ecology” workshops  that were  promoted with  the  customary exuberance (or spiel) in the annual brochures for an affluent international clientele. Grof Transpersonal Training had  fallen  from  favour,  and  sustainability  was the new ploy  for  income.

The Foundation annual commercial brochures were and are all about  the economic  factor, whatever  the  minor thematics  varying  from  A  Course in  Miracles  to  neoshamanism. The  workshops and courses  were widely known to  be  expensive, but  this  discrepant  factor  was offset by  declarations to the effect  that spiritual education was endorsed by the  Dept of  Public Information, indelibly  associated with  NGO  status.

The debt declared in 2001 was given various attempted remedies such as the mortgage  of  Foundation properties. The  overdraft on Cluny  Hill College  was  stated to  be  £500,000  (Greenaway, In  the  Shadow of the New Age, 2003, p. 333; Shepherd, Pointed Observations, 2005, p. 190).  In November 2002, that particular debt  was declared  to  be  reduced  to  £305,000, a matter  stated  in  the  local  press.

Proliferating  business drives within  the  community  gave  the  impression of  entirely separate enterprises to superficial scrutiny, though  a  convergent  impulse is  evident.  For  instance, Duneland Ltd appeared as a separate  concern  to  Eco Village Ltd and the Findhorn  Foundation. Close analysts kept track of the complexities.

“The leading director and  founder of  Duneland Ltd is John Talbott, who is also founder and leading director of Eco-Village Ltd” (Greenaway, op. cit., p. 346). Application  for  the  latter  enterprise  was accepted by Moray Council in 1997, shortly before Duneland Ltd was  announced (ibid., p. 115). Greenaway  reports  that Talbott (a major celebrity of the Foundation) had asserted that The Park and the bordering ecovillage “are one and the same” (ibid., p. 346).  This factor of geographical identity tends to support Greenaway’s description of “the Findhorn  Foundation conglomerate,” a phrase used to specify the overlapping business activities  of this disputed  community.

It is clear that the ecovillage team were anxious to enlist the support of Angus Robertson, MP  for Moray, who became  sympathetic to  their cause after  Dr. Winifred  Ewing  retired  from  her  political  role in 2003. To quote here  from  my Letter  to  the  Home  Office  (2006):

“Moray MP Angus Robertson has collaborated with the Findhorn Foundation (abbreviation FF) in their plan to host a  new UN  training  centre  in  Moray.  Robertson has described this as an ‘audacious and innovative proposal.’ The audacity merits  investigation. His  alliance  with  the  FF  has  only  been  in process for about two years, and  critics  say  that  he  is  not  duly  informed about FF history, much of which has been repressed in the facade presented. Robertson’s enthusiasm  has replaced  the earlier reserve  of  Dr. Winifred Ewing, who retired in 2003  after  expressing  scepticism [of  the  FF].  She had to wait  six months for  the FF management to reply to her pressing letter. The incentive for the new UN training centre in [Findhorn] Moray originated within the  FF, not  within  the  UN.  Robertson has acknowledged  the  FF  as  ‘the moving  force  behind  the  project.’ ”

The  ecovillage  celebrities  implied as  the  prime  movers  in  the  UNITAR  liaison  are Craig  Gibsone, his wife May East, Alex  Walker, John  Talbott,  Michael  Shaw, and Jonathan Dawson.  They influenced Robertson, who in turn produced a political  effect upon  Moray Council. The  culminating  public  relations tactic of  the Findhorn Foundation in  2006  involved  “lying low” for  several  months  in the face of some criticism, though their dormant publicity vehicle was dramatically reactivated in September  with  the news of the coup engineered at Geneva via the collaboration of Moray Council.

Practically all of this passed  unnoticed  to  general view, save  for  the  end  result, and the Scottish Executive were entirely dependent upon what they were subsequently told  by  the  chief  mediators in this scheme. UNITAR remained a distant and largely inscrutable Continental mechanism of endorsement, even to Scottish ministers of high standing.

The Findhorn Foundation  ecovillage  project  to  secure  CIFAL status   required some  length  of  time to implement, and depended  crucially upon  the assisting  parties  named. All  warnings  and public complaints were ignored. By gaining UNITAR sanction for the twelfth CIFAL centre on their territory, the Findhorn Foundation moved from the downside economic position to  one  of  prestige advantage for gaining further donations and subsidies. The additional  economic benefits  coveted  by  Moray  Council (via UN connections) were allowed to obscure  the  precise  situation of  what  the  Findhorn Foundation had been doing for many years in their commercial  workshop  programme  and  other activities.

Critical observers subsequently took close note of the fact  that CIFAL Findhorn operates as  a separate business within  the  Findhorn Foundation “conglomerate” of commercial enterprises.  CIFAL Findhorn Company Ltd has not  convinced  critics  that  a  viable or  intrinsic ecological role is being demonstrated in the disputed situation. The charges made to subscribers (private and official) attending CIFAL Findhorn training programmes are substantial, and  tend to underline the business  concept involved.

While the ecological content of these programmes seems applicable, some observers query  the  daily rate  of charges,  varying  in 2008  between £100-145. Therewas a  slight  reduction  for  two  days at £190-270. Three day attendance has been  listed  at  £280-405. Some  seminars  have  been  restricted  to 30 people or less, and obviously the scope of  financial advantage  is  then  limited. Yet  critics  call  the phenomenon ecobiz, especially as such subscriber events accompany  the commercial “workshops” in sustainability that are chiefly associated with Craig Gibsone (see  2.8   below).

However, the partisan view is rather more glowing. Strongly associated with the Findhorn  Foundation is GEN  (Global  Ecovillage  Network), which  has  become  a major  tool  in  the  promotionalism.  GEN  was inaugurated  in 1995, and  funded  by  Ross Jackson of  Denmark, who “became wealthy  by  designing  his own currency trading system.”  In  January 2005, May East promoted the related Ecovillage Designer Education  to UNESCO (Paris)  and UNITAR (Geneva).  This  move is reported to have  secured  UNITAR approval,  and was the preliminary  to  negotiations  for  the  CIFAL  centre  at  Findhorn.

That  same year, the  Findhorn Foundation  became  noted  for their declared objective of being “the focal center of  a  network  of  light  around  the  planet.”  This exotic  concept had originated with the predictions of co-founder Eileen Caddy (d. 2006), who did not figure in the governing  strategies of  the community after the early phases associated with  the Findhorn Bay  caravan  park.  Her “new  age” books continued to be a popular focus for subscribers, but  the  management and economic directive was vested  in  other bodies. GEN  became   associated with  the  “network of  light”  believed to be of divine origin.

GEN  has  asserted  “a  new  kind  of global  education” for  the  twenty-first century.  A key  word  in  this project is sustainability, though  one  tending  to be  monotonous  in “workshop”  schemes.  At  the Findhorn  Ecovillage, Jonathan  Dawson  became  noted  for  outlining  the  “economics  curriculum” of  GEN. There is also said to be an ecological  curriculum, a  social  curriculum, and  a  spiritual  curriculum. Dawson became  the  President  of  GEN, and  has also been   described  in  the  Findhorn  Ecovillage promotionalism as “helping to establish the community’s alternative currency (the Eko),” and as teaching Applied Sustainability  and Sustainable  Economics up  to  undergraduate  level. 

The  Findhorn  Ecovillage  has  featured  an  expensive  commercial  programme  under  the  rubric  of Ecovillage Design  Education.  A  four  week  course  in  this  subject  occurred  in  October- November 2008, and  was advertised  as  having  the  endorsement  of  UNITAR.  The price tag  was  substantial, stipulating £1595  to £2125 depending upon  low or high income of the applicant.  A  similar  range applied to the charges for one week or  “module” at  £455  to  £605.  The device for maximal extraction is  now  pervasive  within the Findhorn Foundation. The “facilitators”  (an  American  term)  of  this programme  included  Jonathan  Dawson,  May  East (the organiser or CEO for CIFAL  Findhorn),  and Michael  Shaw.  Critical  observers  wonder  at  how  every subject  in  this  sector  becomes  a  lever  for  economic  contributions.  

There  is  also  the  factor  that CIFAL Findhorn and  the  Ecovillage  are  ultimately inseparable  from  the large array of other commercial  workshops  promoted  by  the Findhorn Foundation on the same territory. The content of many of these varying  “workshops” is  controversial, and the accusation has been lodged  that  clients  and guests  are  prone  to being  misled and  miseducated  by the pop-mysticism and related themes and practices.

The “transformation” hype  is  very strong in this sector, and the Findhorn Foundation have stressed “personal and spiritual transformation” as part of their activity in being  a  registered  educational  trust (e.g., the  inside back page promotion in Findhorn Foundation Courses and Workshops May-October 2004). Nobody is supposed to argue with this trend, supported by invocations of  the UN  Dept of  Public Information that regularly appeared for some years  in  the  commercial  brochures of  the  Findhorn  Foundation.

2.5     New  Age  Buddhism

The Findhorn Foundation is attended by some associated ventures and independent charities. One of these has aroused  criticism, namely the Shambala Retreat in Findhorn, which is in close proximity to the Foundation.  In 2005, the Retreat received a substantial loan of £1.36 million from an anonymous donor “connected to the Findhorn Foundation.” The venture was thus able to acquire a large property in the area. There was some speculation about the loan or donation being  influenced by the fact that leading directors of the new retreat had long-term status within the Foundation.  Craig Gibsone was prominent in the Shambala administration.

The Shambala Retreat has been described as an interfaith centre for healing. A therapy message has been detected. A Buddhist orientation has been claimed, though a contradictory item emanating from that new venture appeared in  Rainbow Bridge, the  internal magazine of the Foundation,  which stated that “much of Tibetan Buddhism is outdated and not in tune with the energies of the New Age.” See Update November 2005 to my Letter of Complaint to David Lorimer. Some commentators have accordingly described the Shambala Retreat  venture  in terms of “new age Buddhism.”

Three years later,  in September 2008, the Shambala Retreat for Healing and Universal Compassion gained publicity via the worldwide  Maitreya Project Relic Tour. An article in the local press received criticism (“Buddha relics tour offers rare opportunity,” Forres Gazette, Sept. 17, 2008, p. 3). Author John P. Greenaway made clear his objections to that article in a letter to Moray Councillor John  Hogg dated 30/09/08. Greenaway here complains that the style of reporting is too reminiscent of Findhorn Foundation marketing extravagances, as in the Gazette reference to “representatives from all the major religions and Buddhist groups will also attend.” 

The critic was similarly suspicious  of subsequent photographs which appeared in the same local newspaper, one of these showing Angus Robertson MP and three Moray Councillors  who were present at the unveiling of the Buddhist artefacts. Moray Council is not noted for a prior interest in Buddhism, and  a political intention has been surmised elsewhere.

Greenaway has some knowledge of Buddhism, more especially the Tibetan variety,  and his comments are of interest.  The press report stated that many Buddhist masters had donated relics for the project under discussion, including the Dalai Lama. John Greenaway here objects:

“This seems rather cleverly worded to suggest that the Dalai Lama is supporting this Findhorn Foundation related Shambala project. In fact, the Dalai Lama and the Karmapa, as respective heads of leading lineages who originally supported  the Shambala project, both withdrew their support some two years ago.”

The Director of Shambala is Thomas Warrior, a close affiliate of the Findhorn Foundation. The press reported him as saying: “We are very excited to host the world-famous Heart Shrine Relic Tour  at Shambala for the first time in Scotland....a very unique event in this day and age.” Greenaway sceptically comments:

“This is the Findhorn Foundation hype machine at work ! Buddhism does not express itself like this. Show business does ! When living in Aberdeen, 2003 to 2007, I attended weekly meditation meetings at a Buddhist venue. They [the participants at that venue] were invited to visit an earlier showing at the Findhorn Foundation of these relics. They declined, on the grounds that  this  kind of  Buddhism is showy, materialistic, and superstitious.”

The  critic  had  another  grievance  which  he  expressed  quite  incisively  in  the  letter  to  hand:

“Thomas  Warrior,  Director  of  Shambala,  at  inception  cited  Chogyam  Trungpa  as  inspiration.  This notorious lama,  who  died  in  the  late  1980s,  was  a  compulsive  sex  addict  (though  his  followers believe  he  was taking his  devotees’  karma  on  himself)  and  long  term  drug  abuser  –  hash,  cocaine, and  LSD.  When  he  died  (of cyrrhosis  of  the  liver  caused  by  alcoholism),  the  American  who  replaced him  as  head  of  Trungpa’s  group was  a  promiscuous  bisexual  who  already  had  AIDS.  Trungpa  had  given  him  a  magical  mantra,  so  he believed,  which  meant  he  would  not  pass  on  the  infection  to  further  partners.  So  he  (the  successor) continued  his  sexual  pluralism,  and  of  course  duly  passed on AIDS  to  several  partners.  (I  know  Thomas Warrior  is  not  like  this  at  all;  my  point  is,  he  is  naive and only  quoted  the  dead  Trungpa  after  the  living heads  of  Tibetan  schools  withdrew  their  support.)”

A  third  topic  of  grievance  was  broached  in  the  Greenaway  epistle  on  these  religious  matters:

“Thomas  Warrior  is  on  record  as stating  that  Tibetan  Buddhism  is  now  out  of  date,  as  it  has  been replaced  by  the  New  Age.  Yet  relic  tours  are  distinctly  Tibetan  Buddhist,  and  a  large  majority  of Buddhists, including  many  Tibetans,  find  them  embarrassing  and  feel  they   should be  dispensed  with.”

2.6     Trees  For  Life

A rather different form of activity is also associated with the Findhorn Foundation, namely Trees For Life. Founded in 1981 by Alan Watson, this project was initially part of the Foundation, but became an independent charity in 1993. The speciality was here tree planting in Glen Affric, which became the geographical focus in 1991. Critic John Greenaway was appreciative of this activity and wrote that an office for this charity was retained at the Foundation property known as The Park, though Trees For Life “is technically independent of  the Foundation conglomerate” (In the Shadow of the New Age, 2003, p. 36).

Recently, Trees For Life has expanded by purchasing the Dundreggen Estate at Glenmoriston in the Highlands. This acquisition of 10,000 acres involved £1.65 million and also required two years of negotiation. The project entails the planting of 500,000 native trees to connect (or rather reconnect) the forests between Glenmoriston and  Glen Affric. In 2005, Trees For Life  gained  as a patron  the Scottish journalist and broadcaster Muriel Gray, who planted the half-millionth tree that year in Glen Affric.

If projects such as Trees For Life were all that comprised the Findhorn Foundation, there would be no opposition from critics like the present writer. I might instead have joined the Foundation when I moved to Scotland many years ago.

As a matter of record here, I did not find much ecological pursuit in evidence at either Findhorn village or Forres, and I lived for a time in both of those places. I did notice that a solitary wind turbine (installed during the late 1980s) functioned at The Park (Findhorn), but this landmark was not enough to cause any conversion on my part  to a very disconcerting milieu dominated by commercial “workshops” and alternative therapy.

There were other factors that were even more offputting, such as the treatment of dissidents and the attendant evasionism  which was in total contradiction to any genuine democratic spirit. The new and strongly promoted eco-houses  were  no answer to  deeply entrenched problems.

I could never understand why so many visitors to the Foundation preferred to pay exorbitant prices for entrepreneurial  new age “workshops” instead of sampling the joys of Glen Affric and other Highland zones that were available for free. All one had to do was bike or motor out to those beauty spots and wild places. Of course, the really hardy types just walk everywhere, but I was getting too old for that.

According to close reports, the Foundation staff  were not generally athletic types, and were not in the habit of walking the glens or climbing. The Foundation literature left me unmoved, and indeed nauseated. The Eileen Caddy genre of “God spoke to Me” made no difference to my general scepticism, especially as I knew in detail to what extent that co-founder had permitted discrepancies in the annual programme.

One of my initial inspirations of the 1990s was Muriel Gray’s book The First Fifty (1991). That title refers to the mountains known as Munros which are scattered throughout the Highlands. I took to a backpack, waterproof clothing,  and solid walking boots. I took my first fifty in two years, and then just kept going, though developing a habit of returning to my favourite locations.

Scotland  forever, but an end  to predatory  “workshops” and  evasive  managerialism.

2.7     Dissident  Kate Thomas

When I first journeyed to the far north in 1989, I was already a sceptic of the Findhorn Foundation. Their promotionalism repelled me, though I agreed to suspend judgment because my mother became an associate member of this organisation. She argued that there could be potential for something much better. My suspended judgment turned to deep scepticism as the new drama unfolded.

My mother (Jean Shepherd, alias Kate Thomas)  found  that  Grof Transpersonal Training  Inc.  was  being ardently promoted by the Foundation Director Craig Gibsone,  who opted to become a practitioner of  the disruptive Grof practice called Holotropic  Breathwork (hyperventilation).  She found that  complaints were not tolerated, and that objections to managerial policy were regarded as an aberration to be rejected without further hearing.

Another  major  influence within the Foundation was Alex Walker, managing director of the trading arm New Findhorn Directions. Walker tended to gain the in-house reputation of an adept in “spiritual business,” a phrase also evocative of Francois Duquesne, whose leadership in the early 1980s had “strongly supported expansion beyond the Educational Foundation of the Trust Deed into a spiritually based community, embracing business activity” (Carol Riddell, The Findhorn Community, 1991, pp. 88-9). In the 1990s, Duquesne was one of the Foundation Trustees,  who were all found to be evasive and non-communicative about valid complaints addressed to them.

During  the early Grof phase, Alex Walker was insisting that “at present the community is in a very healthy state, economically, socially and spiritually” (ibid., p. 223).  That very questionable  contention did not gain anything from Walker’s denial in the local press that Kate Thomas had ever been a member of the Foundation. Coming from a  Trustee of  the  “spiritual business” community, this inaccurate denial of 1992 was not a good sign for aggregate memory  performance of  the staff, who continually demonstrated a habit of forgettingor ignoring important  details. The obscured  membership was reported  in a dissident book which arrayed many facts unwelcome to the Foundation elite (Castro, Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation, 1996, p. 15).

Kate Thomas became the major dissident at the Findhorn Foundation in the days when Stanislav Grof was regarded as a saviour of alternative therapy. Grof was confused with spiritual achievement, and ecology was just a mute handmaid of the commercial programme.  The acute hostilities and distortions achieved by “Education” manager Eric Franciscus  were almost unbelievable, and to suspend judgment any further (on my part) would have been an  act of sheer folly. 

I composed an  analytical paper on the Findhorn Foundation in a book (published in 1995) that was too long for the therapy victims to read. They were totally indoctrinated with clichés and  entrepreneurial “techniques” of a very commercial type that sold for hundreds of pounds at a time. Grof  workshops sold for over £400, and numerous other bizarre inventions were not far behind. The new age was worse than the old age, and based on the same predatory principles of capitalism, though the vaunted “education” (extolled by Franciscus) was far inferior to anything found in universities.

The drama expanded to include medical doctors, Edinburgh University Pathology Department, the Scottish Charities Office, leading journalists, the local watchdog Sir Michael Joughin, and yet others far afield. Many events were recorded by Stephen Castro in an annotated work that was vilified by the Foundation staff as unfit to read, because they and their policies were the subject of criticism. The disillusioned Castro had also been an associate member, though he eventually became a computer technician and an accountant (an employee of the Inland Revenue).  His book was published at Forres in 1996, and was memorably suppressed within the Foundation (see  2.1  above).

A number of investigators have only recently caught up with these details. The mood is one of amazement that such things could happen under the auspices of a registered charity who became an NGO in 1997.  The precarious context in which the Foundation became an NGO was a precursor to the anomalous situation in which the same organisation gained CIFAL status  a decade later.

In more general terms, the partisan tale of how Eileen and Peter Caddy created the “magic of Findhorn” in the 1960s, and how this became an ideal “intentional community” fully equipped for UN honours, is one that arouses disagreement elsewhere. In this vein of dispute, for instance, the Hon. Tom Sackville (Chairman of FAIR) stated in a letter to Kate Thomas (dated 01/10/2007) that the Findhorn Foundation “should not be classed as an NGO.” Some tactics of the organisation at issue have been compared to the tendencies of cults, which are now quite closely defined.

Sackville was here responding to the Letter to UNESCO  composed by Thomas and dated 01/09/2007. That document afterwards became available on the internet and comprises a concise statement of the treatment meted out toThomas by the Foundation staff and Trustees. She addressed that communication to UNESCO because attempts to contact UNITAR had proved  futile. She reasoned that the good reputation of UNESCO would ensure her letter receiving a due response on behalf of the United Nations. UNESCO is the abbreviation for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation. This body has a somewhat higher repute than the  Dept of  Public  Information associated with formal investiture of NGO status. See further Letter of Kate Thomas to UNESCO.

Thomas was  disappointed when UNESCO failed to reply. Not even the briefest acknowledgment was forthcomingfrom the official to whom her  lengthy letter was addressed. In contrast, the Prince of Wales sent an exquisitely courteous response to the copy that was despatched to him.

Subsequently, Kate Thomas sent a much shorter letter to the Director of the Findhorn Foundation, namely Bettina Jespersen. This letter  was  dated  23/11/2007,  and  is  here  reproduced  in  full:

Dear  Bettina  Jespersen,

I  am  enclosing  a copy of  the letter  sent  to Koichiro  Matsuura, the Director General of UNESCO, on 1/9/2007, regarding  the  Findhorn  Foundation  and  their   treatment  of  myself  and  colleagues  as described on the recently presented website www.citizeninitiative.com – a letter to which I have still received  no  reply.  I  would  be grateful  if  you would  now  personally  look  into  this  matter  and  inform me  why  for  so  many  years  I  have been stigmatised and excluded, and why others, namely Gemma Whibley, Jill  Rathbone, and Dr. Sylvia  Darke, were  banned  from  the  Foundation  for  supporting  me. I have never been  given  a  reason  for  this, and the lack of response  from  Koichiro  Matsuura  perhaps indicates  that  he  was  not  given  one  either.

It is one thing  to  have  this treatment  administered  by  a little-known New Age organisation, but quite another  for  it  to  be  applied  by  a part  of  the  CIFAL  network  backed  by  UNITAR, which is why I am making  this  request.  Similarly,  my   many  pleas  over  the years for  an official  hearing  have  been likewise  ignored.

In  anticipation  of  your  response,
Sincerely,
Jean  Shepherd

P.S. You  may  know  of  me  as  Kate  Thomas,  the  pseudonym  used  for  my  published  books.

cc. May  East,  CIFAL  Findhorn  Project  Director.

There  was  no  reply  to  this  letter  from  either  Jespersen or May East (the wife of Craig Gibsone).  May East held the key official position in CIFAL Findhorn, located on the Foundation campus.  Thomas had no prior   contact  with  Jespersen,  who  was  a recent  Foundation Director. She had formerly encountered East,  though  without  any   friction occurring.

At length Thomas  agreed to contact her local Member of Parliament (as Tom Sackville and others had advised  her).  In  August  2008  she  obtained  an  interview  with Robert Walter, MP for Dorset, and he proved very sympathetic to her case. Walter  expressed surprise at the extent of the evasive treatment about which Thomas complained in relation to the Findhorn Foundation. He was of the firm opinion that UNESCO needed to  be  recontacted,  and  that  the  Foundation  required  a  separate  reminder  of  their negligence.

Robert   Walter  MP  accordingly  sent  communications  to  both  UNESCO  and  Bettina Jespersen. This  was in late August. There did ensue a reply from UNESCO, but a very brief one. The relevant email is dated 02/09/2008 and came from secretary Kate Overton, on behalf of the  Office of the Director  General  at UNESCO.  This communication  read  as  follows:

Effectively,  the  Findhorn  Foundation is not affiliated with UNESCO’s NGO and IGO system. I regret therefore, that  we  will  not  be  able  to  respond  to  Mrs  Shepherd’s  enquiry.

Many  thanks  for  your  assistance.
Best  wishes,
Kate  Overton

This  response  from  UNESCO  evoked  much  word  for  word  and  contextual  analysis. The prestigious body was  obviously  not  prepared  to  say  anything  more on  the  subject, and  was  effectively disowning any link with   the  Findhorn  Foundation. The  abbreviated  nature of the response aroused some comment in the circle  of  acquaintances  of  Kate Thomas, and  this  format  was  considered  to  be  a drawback of current bureaucratic agendas. However, it  was  also a logical  deduction  that  any further claim of the Foundation  to have UNESCO auspices, however indirectly, would not be supportable to informed parties. The  response  of  UNESCO  annulled  various  associations  in  that  direction which  the Findhorn Foundation  had  made  over  the  years  in  promotional  literature.

Probably  the  most  well  known  instance of those strongly accented associations was in relation to the Living in Peace workshop conducted by Pierre Weil and  advertised in relation to UNESCO, whose General Assembly  had  recommended  this  activity  many  years  ago.  Weil was elaborately profiled by the Foundation as  UNESCO’s Adviser on  Education for Peace.  In 1993  Weil  “facilitated” his workshop at the Foundation, an  event  in  Forres which gained local notoriety for the exclusion of close British neighbour Kate Thomas  by  an  American “peacemaker” and  “focaliser” (Castro, Hypocrisy  and  Dissent, 1996, p. 110). The  obstruction  to  peace  was   Foundation  staff  member Stan Stanfield. See also article 1.4 on this website.  See  also  the  related  details  on Pierre Weil and UNESCO  in my web article  Criticism of the New Age (2008).

Robert  Walter MP  was  disconcerted  to find  that  there  was  no reply  from  the  Findhorn Foundation to his  separate communication.  Not  even  the  briefest  acknowledgment  of  a  few  words.  Robert  Walter had  now   confirmed  beyond  all  doubt  that  Kate Thomas  had  a  genuine  basis  for complaint. The situation as a whole was very thought-provoking, involving a disclaiming UNESCO, a remote and aloof UNITAR,  and  an  evasive Findhorn Foundation  management.

Kate Thomas subsequently  resorted  to  solicitors  in  contacting  the Findhorn Foundation management. That correspondence  is  detailed  in  article 1 on  this  website.  A reply  was elicited  in  this manner from the  Foundation Director Bettina Jespersen, though the response fell far short of satisfaction. My subsequent  Letter to Robert  Walter MP  was  dated 27/11/2008,  and  is  reproduced  in  full  as  article 3 on this website. That epistle lists  the contradictions and undisclosed complexities evident in the Jespersen response.

2.8    Ongoing   Commercial   Workshops

Meanwhile, as an accompaniment to the revealing events recorded in 2.7, the calendar of commercial workshops was continuing in pricing advantage at the Foundation campus. Those  workshops do vary in content,  and  some  are  far  more  objectionable  than  others.

The long established attraction and novelty known as the Game of Transformation is still very much in evidence  after  thirty years of advertising.  In November 2008, four days of this Game  were being advertised at between £385-£555 depending upon low or high income. This Game is capable of arousing strong  criticism  from  outside  parties,  to  put  the  matter  politely.  The web ad declared:

“Centred around a circular board symbolising each player’s world, the Game offers a playful yet substantial  way  of  understanding  and  transforming  key  life  issues.”

There was the further insistence that “this is a wonderful opportunity to receive a high degree of masterful attention  and  make  a quantum  leap  into greater wholeness.” Two skilled guides and five players are mentioned. There was also a one week version of the Game on offer in December 2008, the charge  being  £515-£715  depending upon level of income. Such details were conveyed by the official website  at  www.findhorn.org.

The third variation of this allurement is a two  week Facilitator’s Training in the Transformation Game. Scheduled for  November  2008, the  cost was  £1,620  (including accommodation and board). The objective of  this  extension  is  to  license  others  with  the ability to conduct  these workshops. The commercial aspect of the Game of Transformation is glaringly obvious. Such activities flourish in the absence and suppression  of  criticism.

Craig Gibsone reappeared as another commercial fixture in Ecovillage Training 2009, when he and the Foundation Faculty conducted a four week ecology workshop (Feb. 2009). The incessant theme of sustainability  was  here accompanied in the advance web ad  by “Deep  Democracy,”  though dissident letters  to  the  management  are evidently  taboo  and  carefully  screened  from  the  clients  taught  “Deep ecology   and  earth  restoration.” The  ecology  programme  does  not  restore  relations  with  dissidents, and possibly cannot  be trusted to restore very much else when such discrepant  attitudes are so sustainable for many years on end.

The  charges  for  Ecovillage Training  2009  were  £1395  for  clients  with  low  income,  £1595  for  clients with  medium  income, and £1845 for those with high income. There was the option of a one week participation  for  the  graded  fee  of  £425-£545. Commercial  sustainability  is not cheap as chips, and some deep  pockets  are  needed for deep ecology.

However,  for  those  who cannot afford the full charge, a bursary is in prospect. Yet nothing may be lost here,  as “if  you  can  afford  to  pay  more than the full fee for this programme, your donation will be gratefully  received  and  used   to  help  those  who  cannot  afford the whole fee.” Deep ecology is ingenious  in  making  client suggestions, and the Findhorn Foundation is accustomed to receiving donations.

l to r:  Andrew  Cohen,  Ken  Wilber

Even bigger celebrities were visible on the workshop calendar. Two  American heavyweights were scheduled  for  May  2009,  a  three  day  event  being  advertised at £475.  The web ad warned that “this event is expected to be fully booked; please book early to avoid disappointment.” Persuasive stuff to facilitate  the  appearance  of  Andrew  Cohen  in  person and  Ken Wilber by phone link. The title of this event  was  Co-creating  an  Awakened  Culture.

Cohen  was  here  described as a “spiritual teacher,” with Wilber being billed as “the world’s leading ‘integral’ philosopher.” There is no hint of any critical view of these celebrities. The ad does ask an ambiguous question: “What would  a fully awake, vibrant and conscious culture look like in the early 21st century?” This  could  be interpreted to mean that the Findhorn Foundation milieu is fully awake, though deep  slumber  is  an  alternative  verdict  from  sectors  resistant  to  the enthusiast  programme.

Andrew Cohen  has gained reproach from ex-devotees who deny his status as a guru. Ken Wilber has received criticism from ex-partisans who question his ambitious cosmology and version of integralism. These  two  celebrities are now closely linked, having become a dialogue attraction in Cohen’s magazine What is Enlightenment?  The “guru and  pundit” duo were further glorified by the Findhorn Foundation workshop  programme. One theme eulogised here was “a radical shift in our consciousness.” Such a favoured  expression,  appearing  in the ad,  can mean almost anything to the presumably “awakened culture” emphasised by  the workshop  promotionalism.  A  radical  shift  appeared  in  the  hippy  boom of the late 1960s,  and  the confusion still  lingers.  A  radical  shift  was  also capitalised by Grof and other therapy  merchants  in  favour  at  the  Foundation.

For a  rather  more  sceptical  view  of  Andrew  Cohen  and  Ken Wilber, with reference to critics, see my web entry Evaluating  Perennial  Philosophy (2008).  On Wilber integralism, see also article 4 on this website [especially 4.7 entitled "Quadrant Theory, Andrew Cohen, and Stanislav Grof"].

Kevin  R. D.  Shepherd

August   2009

Copyright © August  2009  Kevin  R. D. Shepherd.  All  Rights  Reserved.