Why the Term Applied to MISA Has No Sociological Basis, but Follows the Logic of Moral Panic
Introduction: A Label That Comes Before The Facts
In 2026, the documentary Twisted Yoga was released on Apple TV+ and triggered a series of negative articles about MISA worldwide. An overwhelming majority adopted the distorted perspective presented in the documentary, ignoring the voices of the many who have a completely different experience with MISA yoga school. By referring to the yogic group as a cult, the documentary did not introduce a new label, but reused one that already existed – constructed in Romania decades earlier and later amplified in an international context.
There is a paradox at the core of how MISA yoga movement has been presented to the Romanian public for over three decades: the “cult” label came before any final conviction, any serious academic analysis, and, as available documents show, it emerged as a direct continuation of the repressive practices of the communist Securitate. Gabriel Andreescu, professor at the National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (SNSPA) and one of Romania’s most respected human rights researchers, reconstructs in his book The Repression of the Yoga Movement in the 1980s (Polirom, 2008), based on the archives of the National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives (CNSAS), the mechanism through which alternative spiritual movements were classified as a “threat” by the Department of State Security. His analysis of the 2007 indictment by the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), published separately, shows how the same mechanism survived the change of regime. The report of Swedish expert Karl-Erik Nylund, a vicar and specialist in harmful sects, issued at the demand of the Supreme Court of Sweden in the context of the extradition request for Gregorian Bivolaru, adds the assessment of an independent external observer.
The question “Is MISA a cult?” contains a trap that few notice. The “cult” label applied to the MISA yoga school does not arise from a rigorous academic or legal evaluation, but can be traced back to the control practices of the Securitate in the 1980s. In a context where any form of spiritual autonomy was suspect, yoga was placed in the category of dangerous deviations. “Dangerous” came before the “cult” label, which appeared as a tool of political control. After 1989, this perception did not disappear but was taken over and amplified through intense media campaigns, documented even by human rights organizations. Thus, the term “cult” does not reflect a proven reality, but the result of a gradual process of stigmatization, in which state institutions, the media, and social prejudices worked together. Saying that MISA is a cult is, in fact, a moral judgment disguised as a definition. In this case, the “cult” label is not an analytical category – it is a tool of stigmatization with a clear origin, traceable back to the Securitate files of the Ceaușescu era.
I. The Origin: Yoga as a “Deviation” in Securitate Files
The starting point for any serious analysis of the MISA case must be Romania in the 1980s. Not because MISA existed then – the movement was founded only in January 1990 – but because the label that would later be applied to it had already been built institutionally, in the operational language of the Securitate.
Yoga instructor Mario Sorin Vasilescu offered a clear explanation for this structural hostility: “A person who truly practices yoga is someone who can no longer lie to themselves, and therefore can no longer be lied to. That is why any totalitarian state will avoid yoga like the devil avoids incense.” Andreescu places this quote at the beginning of the chapter Yoga under Communism because it captures the essence of the conflict: yoga represented inner autonomy and independent thinking, both incompatible with the total control claimed by the regime.
The practical consequences were documented in detail by the Securitate. A document from the Department of State Security, approved by minister Tudor Postelnicu and reproduced by Andreescu from the CNSAS archive, described the situation in clear operational terms: it referred to the “intensification and diversification of hostile activity directed against the Socialist Republic of Romania by foreign intelligence services and reactionary organizations, acting in our country under the cover of the Transcendental Meditation sect.” The same document stated that “persons who have joined the sect will be placed under informational surveillance” and explicitly mentioned cooperation with the press: among the countermeasures, it included ensuring the “publication in the central and local press” of materials against the targeted activities.
In April 1982, the ban was extended beyond Transcendental Meditation: the Securitate included “yoga or other rituals of Eastern inspiration” within the scope of repression. Decision no. 1253 of August 27, 1982, issued by the Executive Bureau of the National Council for Physical Education and Sport, officially enforced the ban: “The organization and operation of any forms of yoga and karate, within or alongside sports clubs and associations, are prohibited.”
Gregorian Bivolaru appears in Securitate files from this period described in terms that reveal the system’s logic: “Yoga instructor known for hostile manifestations. Arrested. Worked through DUI by SMB-ind. 130.” His convictions during this period – for “spreading obscene materials” (yoga books), “practicing a profession without authorization” (teaching yoga), and “distributing publications without authorization” – are not evidence of antisocial behavior, but of a system that had criminalized independent spiritual activity.
The conclusion from these archive documents is clear: the “dangerous/sectarian” label applied to yoga practitioners appeared as a tool of political control, before any evaluation of their actual behavior. Yoga was considered dangerous not because of what it did, but because of what it produced: independent individuals who could no longer be controlled.
II. Institutional Continuity after 1989: Recycling a Narrative
The fall of the communist regime did not mean the disappearance of the structures that had served it. Andreescu points out a fact with major consequences: some of the officers who repressed yogis under Ceaușescu “have become, or still are, part of the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) or the justice system, including the military prosecutor’s office.”
Direct evidence comes from the testimony of Angela Mayer, a MISA member accused in the group trial. She recounts how, in the summer of 1990, she met on the street officer Grigorescu, one of those who had interrogated her in the 1980s: “He seemed very friendly, as if we had ever been friends. He told me then that he had been rehired [by the SRI]. Several people who knew him from the investigation period also saw him at MISA rallies over time, up to the searches in March 2004.”
Andreescu notes that SRI surveillance of MISA is officially acknowledged from 1996 – there is an order placing the movement under informational monitoring – but evidence suggests it began as early as 1990. It is essential to understand what this means legally: MISA was monitored under national security legislation, not criminal law. For years, the state used intelligence tools to monitor a movement it considered a public threat, but not the tools of a legitimate criminal investigation. This distinction says more about the real nature of the “threat” than any accusation: if criminal acts had existed, there would have been a criminal mandate.
This institutional continuity explains why the negative perception of MISA did not need to be built from scratch after 1989. It was recycled: taken over by institutions with partly the same personnel, who continued their activity toward former targets, this time under the umbrella of a democratic state.
III. Transfer into the Public Sphere: The Mechanism of Moral Panic
Labelling MISA as a “cult” is not an isolated phenomenon but fits into a broader pattern observable in the modern history of religions and spiritual movements. Over time, many groups that are now accepted – or even mainstream – were once stigmatized in a similar way.
A classic example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). In the 19th century, they were seen as a “dangerous sect,” accused of immoral practices and undermining social order. The press described them in alarmist terms, and their community faced severe persecution. Today, they are a recognized religion with millions of members worldwide.
Another relevant example is the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In the 1970s–1980s, the Hare Krishna movement was widely labelled a “cult,” associated with brainwashing and manipulation of young people. Later, these accusations were reassessed, and many researchers considered the term “cult” inappropriate and stigmatizing.
Even widely accepted practices today, such as yoga, have at times been viewed with suspicion or marginalized. In different historical periods and cultural contexts, yoga was seen as a foreign, exotic, or even dangerous influence.
Sociologist Stanley Cohen described in his work Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972) a recurring phenomenon in modern societies: a disproportionate, media-amplified reaction to a group or behavior perceived as a social threat, creating an image of danger far exceeding reality. In such cases, public reaction often goes beyond the actual seriousness of the phenomenon, and the targeted group becomes a “symbolic enemy.”
Applied to MISA, this concept provides a useful framework. Practices unfamiliar to the general public, such as tantra or forms of Eastern spirituality, create discomfort and misunderstanding. These are then reinterpreted negatively, associated with ideas like manipulation or social danger. The media adopts and amplifies these perceptions, helping create a coherent – but not necessarily accurate – image.
In this process, complexity is reduced to a simple narrative: a group becomes a “cult,” and its members are either victims or accomplices. Any later information is filtered through this framework, making the original label self-confirming. The group is considered a “cult,” so any behavior becomes proof of sectarianism. The label is no longer questioned – it becomes a filter.
Media campaigns against MISA appeared immediately after 1989 and intensified in the second half of the 1990s. Andreescu explicitly identifies the source: “the slanders launched through the press in the early 1990s against MISA were directed by former Securitate officers.” The Association for the Defense of Human Rights in Romania – Helsinki Committee (APADOR-CH) documented in its 1996 and 1997 reports that materials broadcast in the press came directly from the SRI and the Prosecutor’s Office – institutions that, as shown, had their own agenda regarding the movement.
The mechanism is clear: SRI and the Prosecutor’s Office, the press, public opinion, and the justification of further repressive actions. The term “cult” does not arise from independent journalism or sociological analysis. It is reproduced and amplified from an interested institutional source, through repetition, until it becomes accepted as fact. In addition, the media sought to maintain confusion between the ancient yoga system and sectarian phenomena, often relying on prejudice and, not least, ignorance.
A sociological study conducted by the League Against Defamation of Yoga and Spiritual Movements (LAYMS) in 2014–2015 on a representative sample of Romanian citizens who do not practice yoga confirms this numerically. Among those who had heard of MISA but did not personally know any practitioner, 97.6% obtained their information exclusively from news and TV programs. The researchers’ conclusion is direct: the negative image of MISA is largely due to televised negative news. The effects on members of the yoga community are documented: 68.5% of surveyed MISA practitioners reported being mocked or insulted because of their practice, 62.4% experienced labeling and stigmatization, 44.5% were rejected by relatives or friends, and 21.6% had conflicts at work. Furthermore, 98.3% stated that negative stereotypes had been applied to them, the primary one being the “cult” label.
Thus, rather than an exception, the MISA case appears to follow a well-documented pattern: the emergence of a nonconventional spiritual movement, a negative societal reaction, media amplification, and finally the establishment of a stigmatizing label. The “cult” label reflects a moral panic reaction.
From this perspective, the documentary Twisted Yoga does not appear as an isolated investigation but as a continuation of an already existing narrative framework. The “cult” label – used explicitly or implicitly through the French concept of “sectarian deviation” – is not introduced critically but taken as a premise. The documentary does not examine this category – it operates within it. What was constructed in the 1990s through local media – via repetition, selection, and dramatization – is now reproduced in a global format, adapted to a Western audience and integrated into the aesthetics of the true crime documentary genre.
This is the first part of a three-part series. The second part examines what happens when the “cult” label is brought before independent institutions – European courts, experts on harmful sects, and sociological data – and why it does not hold up under any of these tests.
FAQ – Twisted Yoga, MISA, and the case of Gregorian Bivolaru
Q: What is MISA and why was it labelled a ”cult” in Romania?
A: MISA (Movement for Spiritual Integration into the Absolute) is a yoga school founded in Romania in January 1990. The “cult” label does not come from an independent academic or legal evaluation, but can be traced back to communist Securitate files, which classified yoga as subversive activity as early as the 1980s.
Q: What is the connection between the documentary Twisted Yoga on Apple TV+ and the MISA case in Romania?
A: The documentary does not introduce a new perspective on MISA, but takes over a label built in Romania three decades earlier and internationalizes it. Its release triggered a wave of negative global coverage, all operating within the same narrative without critically examining it.
Q: How did the communist Securitate use the “cult” label against yoga practitioners?
A: Documents from the CNSAS archive, analyzed by Gabriel Andreescu, show that the Department of State Security classified yoga as hostile activity, monitored practitioners, and explicitly planned negative press campaigns. Gregorian Bivolaru was convicted during that period for “spreading obscene materials” – yoga books.
Q: What is moral panic and how does it apply to MISA?
A: Moral panic, defined by sociologist Stanley Cohen in Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), describes a disproportionate, media-amplified reaction to a perceived social threat. In MISA’s case, the “cult” label was institutionally produced, amplified by media, and reinforced through repetition, without independent evidence.
Q: Who fuelled the media campaigns against MISA after 1989?
A: APADOR-CH reports from 1996 and 1997 show that negative materials about MISA came directly from the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) and the Prosecutor’s Office. Andreescu also states that former Securitate officers continued monitoring the movement after 1989 within the SRI.
Q: What do sociological studies show about Romanians’ perception of MISA?
A: A 2014–2015 LAYMS study shows that 97.6% of Romanians who do not personally know MISA practitioners formed their opinions exclusively from TV news. The same study found that 68.5% of practitioners were mocked or insulted, and 98.3% reported being subjected to negative stereotypes.