Why the term applied to MISA does not withstand the sociological, legal, and independent expert test
In the first part of this series, we followed how the “cult” label applied to MISA did not appear from an independent analysis, but from a precise institutional mechanism: ”Securitate” files, continuity of personnel after 1989, and media campaigns fuelled by interested sources. The question that remains is: what happened when this label reached truly independent institutions – European courts, cult experts, sociological researchers? The answer is the one we examine further.
I. The institutionalization of stigma: from media label to legal instrument
To understand this complex process, it is necessary to refer to the events in Romania on March 18, 2004: more than 300 gendarmes, prosecutors, policemen, and secret service officers carried out raids at MISA headquarters in Bucharest. APADOR-CH described the intervention as “the most serious violation of democracy since the miners’ raids,” emphasizing that it represented “an unprecedented violation of fundamental rights and freedoms” and that the institutions involved “discredited the norms guaranteed by the Constitution, domestic legislation, and international documents ratified by Romania.” (The miners’ raids were violent interventions by miners in Bucharest in the early 1990s, used to repress protests and influence political developments in the unstable context after the Romanian Revolution of 1989.)
The 2007 DIICOT indictment, analyzed by Andreescu, shows how the media label migrated into legal language. Prosecutor Marian Delcea uses the phrase “organized criminal group with cult-like valences” – wording that Andreescu describes as having no equivalent in the Romanian Penal Code, “used exclusively to create in public opinion – and later, among judges – an adverse reaction.” Other terms without legal basis – “omerta,” “proselytes,” “command level” – are inserted together with descriptions of completely ordinary activities to which the language artificially adds a conspiratorial aura.
Another abuse documented by Andreescu: the indictment was made available by DIICOT to the press and placed online before trial – a direct violation of Recommendation 19/2000 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which states that “prosecutors should keep confidential information obtained from third parties, especially when the presumption of innocence is in question.” The presumption of innocence was not undermined accidentally – it was systematically sabotaged, through strategy.
Human Rights Without Frontiers International (HRWF), an independent human rights monitoring organization based in Brussels, carried out a fact-finding mission in Bucharest in May 2013 and published a 23-page report titled MISA, Gregorian Bivolaru & Yoga Practitioners in Romania. The delegation met practitioners who were victims of judicial and media harassment, artists, teachers, engineers, doctors, a judge, a military officer, a police officer, a journalist, some of whom lost their jobs or clients because of anti-MISA media campaigns that invaded their private lives. In April 2016, after Romania was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for violating fundamental rights in the MISA case, HRWF publicly welcomed the decision and described Bivolaru’s placement on the Europol list as another premeditated abuse by the Romanian authorities. In January 2016, the Romanian Police placed Gregorian Bivolaru on the Europol website under the accusation of “sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,” although his conviction in Romania was for an alleged sexual act with a 17-year-old minor (who denies the facts), an offense that does not allow placement on the Europol list. The illegal modification of the legal classification triggered a cascade of 621 harmful articles and 108 accusatory video broadcasts in the international press in only six weeks.
There is a European verdict that anchors all this in law, not only in opinion: on April 26, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights condemned Romania for violating fundamental rights in the handling of the MISA case, obliging the Romanian state to pay 291,000 euros to the victims. The ECHR found that the Romanian authorities did not even investigate the complaints filed by hundreds of MISA practitioners regarding the abuses of March 18, 2004, and dismissed them without examination. This verdict, issued by the highest European court in the field of human rights, is perhaps the strongest external argument available and, nevertheless, it is almost completely absent from media coverage of the case.
II. The test of the criteria: what cult specialists say
The strongest argument against the “cult” label comes from a source that is difficult to attack: the report of expert Karl-Erik Nylund, a Swedish vicar and author of reference works about harmful cults (Att leka med elden, 1998 and 2004), prepared at the request of the Swedish Supreme Court in the context of the extradition request.
Nylund applies a precise grid – the “four A’s” of manipulative cults: Aggression (punishing members who criticize the leader), Aversion (pursuing external critics), Alienation (geographical or ideological isolation of members from society), Absolute Truth (the leader holds a monopoly over interpretation). His conclusion is unequivocal: “In my discussions with MISA members and leaders I found not even a trace of the four A’s.” Regarding alienation, he notes that “the most common type of membership is participation in courses open to everyone” and that the leaders actively try to counter any tendency toward isolation, “inspiring ashram participants to return to their professions and families.” Regarding absolute truth: “Gregorian Bivolaru does not claim to possess any irrefutable truth. He is one spiritual leader among many.”
Nylund classifies MISA as “a loosely structured movement for an alternative view of life and an alternative therapy, with strong components of gnostic syncretism.” Syncretism – the combination of elements from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Jungianism – is not a marker of cultism, he emphasizes, but “rather a rule than an exception” in the history of religions. Andreescu also cites Nylund’s evaluation: the expert considered MISA “a yogic movement whose participants seek self-perfection and improvement of health” which “belongs to the broad group of movements that support an alternative way of life.” This evaluation – made by a specialist in identifying harmful cults – is incompatible with the official Romanian narrative. And yet the media and authorities completely ignore it. This very ignoring illustrates the mechanism of circularity: the “cult” label had already been fixed, so any contrary evidence was automatically marginalized. The external specialist is not contradicted – he is simply omitted. The filter comes before the facts.
The most recent large-scale academic analysis belongs to the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne. His book Sacred Eroticism (2022) does not use the word “cult” and prefers the term “new religious movement.” According to the analysis of sociologist Massimo Introvigne, MISA cannot be reduced to the simplistic label of “cult,” but represents a new religious movement centered on sacred eroticism, a tradition with legitimate roots in Western esotericism and tantra, while the automatic association between erotic rituals and abuse or deviance reflects more an anti-esoteric prejudice of the mass media and public opinion than a rigorous analysis of the group’s doctrine and practices. Practically, the most rigorous academic analysis does not conclude that MISA is a cult, but on the contrary challenges that label.
Susan J. Palmer, affiliate professor in the Department of Religions and Cultures at Concordia University in Montreal and author of twelve books about new religious movements, carried out a field research project dedicated exclusively to the experience of women in MISA, published under the title #SheToo. Her conclusion, after nine days of interviews with 39 women practicing yoga within the MISA yoga school, directly contradicts the dominant narrative: if she had to choose between “patriarchal oppression” and “women’s emancipation,” Palmer writes that she would choose the latter. The interviewed women occupy leadership roles, develop courses, lead seminars, and integrate their spiritual practice into independent careers, psychotherapy, film directing, dance, pedagogy. Palmer observes that women in MISA can view themselves as embodiments of Shakti, and the female body is glorified as a symbol of divinity, a position closer to second-wave feminism than to the subordination described in the press.
III. The structural incompatibility between yoga and the cult model
A deeper argument that deserves attention is that yoga, by its nature, is structurally incompatible with the functioning of a cult system. A cult is defined by contraction and isolation – of consciousness, of the group, of the person from society. Its predominant tendency is exclusivism, fanaticism, dependence on a leader. Yoga, on the other hand, is by definition a system of expansion: of opening consciousness, of personal autonomy, of freely assumed self-discipline. The Sanskrit term itself, yuj, “to unite,” points toward a direction of integration, not separation. Progress in yoga is strictly personal and direct – there is no yoga “by proxy.” The system requires continuous personal effort, critical thinking, and personal responsibility: qualities that any real cult actively suppresses, because they undermine control. A system that promotes liberation as the ultimate spiritual goal cannot logically build mechanisms of collective dependence on a leader without contradicting itself.
This incompatibility is empirically documented in an academic study published in Revista de Cercetări Sociale no. 3/1997. Sociologist Carmen Mărcuș applied 801 questionnaires on a representative sample of MISA students from Bucharest, Cluj, and other cities, supplemented with group interviews and participant observation over a period of three years. The conclusions are clear and verifiable. The profile of practitioners directly contradicts the stereotype of the cult that recruits vulnerable and socially isolated people: 76.3% of the students had higher education, and 20.3% had high school education. The great majority kept their professions and followed a normal professional path: 86.3% of subjects recorded no harmful change in occupation after beginning yoga practice.
Social relationships were not eroded, but in the great majority maintained or improved: 79.1% reported unchanged or better relationships with parents, 73.6% with their group of friends, 88.2% with work or school colleagues. Where tensions appeared, the study explains them through the nonconformist lifestyle, for example adopting a vegetarian diet, not through mechanisms of isolation imposed by the group.
An argument against the cult label from Mărcuș’s study is the fact that 62.5% of practitioners declared themselves open toward their own religion, mostly Orthodox Christianity, and 38.3% stated that yoga practice brought them closer to the Christian faith. Some had received Orthodox baptism after beginning the course.
Applying the definition from the Dictionary of Sociology, which describes a cult as a “small religious group that rejects most lifestyles and values of the dominant society,” Mărcuș finds that MISA practitioners accept and promote the values of society, including professional achievement and material well-being, and that the movement functions as an open system: participants are free to leave at any time, to return after years of absence, without any obligation and without any consequences. Her conclusion: MISA does not fit into the category of a cult, but of a subculture proposing a lifestyle based on moral and spiritual values, compatible with normal social integration.
This study has special evidentiary value: it is academic, published in a specialized journal, and dates from 1997, years before the 2004 raids in the MISA ashrams and before any institutional pressure connected to the MISA case. It is not a document produced by the movement in its own defense. It is a sociological study carried out according to the methodological standards of the field.
The renowned French sociologist of religion Émile Poulat, in an emblematic article titled L’Église, une secte qui a réussi? (Actualité des Religions, 2001), asked a question that summarizes the entire paradox of the label: what distinguishes a cult from a recognized religion, if not social success and institutional power? The label, in other words, says more about the dynamics of power than about the nature of the targeted group.
“Cult” does not describe MISA. It describes the mechanism through which certain institutions of the Romanian state transformed a spiritual movement into a public enemy. And Twisted Yoga did not discover a hidden reality – it internationalized a narrative built in Romania three decades ago and gave it a new aesthetic for a global audience. This is, in the end, the broader lesson of the case: the label says nothing about the one who carries it, but says a great deal about those who apply it and about the context in which they apply it.
This is the second part of a series of three articles analysing the cult label unjustly attributed to the MISA yoga school. The third part examines the objections brought against this perspective.
Sources
Gabriel Andreescu, The DIICOT Indictment: the Presumption of Guilt of MISA Adherents (2007); Karl-Erik Nylund, Report on Gregorian Bivolaru and the yoga movement MISA (Stockholm, 2005, certified translation from Swedish); Massimo Introvigne, Sacred Eroticism: Tantra and Erotic Religion in the West (2022); Susan J. Palmer, #SheToo: The Experience of Women in MISA (bitterwinter.org, 2026); Carmen Mărcuș, The Psycho-Social Effects of Yoga Practice, Revista de Cercetări Sociale, no. 3/1997; Émile Poulat, L’Église, une secte qui a réussi?, Actualité des Religions, 2001; LAYMS, Sociological Study Regarding Romanian Citizens’ Perception of Gregorian Bivolaru (February-March 2016); European Court of Human Rights, ruling of April 26, 2016 in the case of MISA practitioners against Romania; Ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court in the case of the extradition request of Gregorian Bivolaru; APADOR-CH Reports 1996, 1997, 2004; Human Rights Without Frontiers International, MISA, Gregorian Bivolaru & Yoga Practitioners in Romania (May 2013).
FAQ
Q: Why did the Swedish Supreme Court refuse the extradition of Gregorian Bivolaru to Romania?
A: The Swedish Supreme Court concluded that Gregorian Bivolaru risked serious persecution if returned to Romania, because of his religious beliefs. The decision was also based on the report of expert Karl-Erik Nylund, a specialist in harmful cults, who concluded that MISA does not present the characteristics of a dangerous cult group.
Q: What criteria do specialists apply to identify a harmful cult and how does MISA relate to them?
A: Swedish expert Karl-Erik Nylund applies the “four A’s”: Aggression, Aversion, Alienation, and Absolute Truth. His conclusion after analyzing MISA is that none of these markers is significantly present, participation is open, members are encouraged to maintain relationships with family and profession, and the leader does not claim a monopoly on truth.
Q: What did the documentary Twisted Yoga discover about MISA and how credible are its conclusions?
A: Twisted Yoga presents testimonies of former members, but does not critically examine the “cult” label it uses, it takes it as a premise. The proportions are relevant: MISA has approximately 20,000 sympathizers, of whom 6,000 are active, and the number of those who filed complaints is in the order of dozens. The documentary systematically ignores the testimonies of the majority.
Q: How did the mass media distort Romanians’ perception of Gregorian Bivolaru?
A: A 2016 LAYMS study on 500 citizens shows that although Bivolaru was convicted in Romania for a sexual act with a 17-year-old minor (who repeatedly stated that the incriminating statement, which she withdrew the next day, had been extracted under pressure), 74.74% of respondents believed he had committed child trafficking, 68.21% believed him guilty of pedophilia, and 67.16% of rape, acts for which he was never accused or convicted. The source of this distorted perception: television, indicated by 96% of respondents.
Q: What is the ultimate consequence of three decades of media stigmatization of MISA?
A: A sociological study from 2016 reveals that 70.4% of questioned Romanian citizens would give Gregorian Bivolaru punishments such as the death penalty, public torture, or life imprisonment. Only 3.6% considered him innocent. This figure illustrates what a repeatedly applied label over three decades without independent evidentiary substance can produce.
Q: What did the European Court of Human Rights decide in the MISA case?
A: On April 26, 2016, the ECHR condemned Romania for violating fundamental rights in the handling of the MISA case, obliging the Romanian state to pay 291,000 euros to the victims. The Court found that the Romanian authorities did not investigate the complaints filed by hundreds of MISA practitioners regarding the abuses of March 18, 2004, and dismissed them without examination. It is one of the strongest external arguments available in this case and one of the least known to the wider public.
Q: What did Human Rights Without Frontiers find following its investigation into MISA?
A: Human Rights Without Frontiers International, an independent human rights monitoring organization based in Brussels, carried out a fact-finding mission in Bucharest in May 2013 and published a 23-page report. The delegation met practitioners who were victims of judicial and media harassment from all professional categories, artists, teachers, engineers, doctors, a judge, a military officer, a police officer, a journalist, some losing their jobs because of anti-MISA media campaigns. In April 2016, after Romania’s condemnation by the ECHR, HRWF described Bivolaru’s placement on the Europol list as another premeditated abuse by the Romanian authorities, part of the same pattern documented since 2004.