Editing Marshall Applewhite (section)

==Analysis==
Although many popular commentators, including psychologist [[Margaret Singer]],{{sfn|Monmaney|1997}} speculate that Applewhite brainwashed his followers, many academics have rejected the "brainwashing" label as an oversimplification that does not express the nuances of the process by which the followers were influenced.{{sfn|Davis|2000|p=241}} Lalich speculates that they were willing to follow Applewhite in suicide because they had become totally dependent upon him, hence were poorly suited for life in his absence.{{sfn|Lalich, "Using the Bounded Choice Model"|2004|pp=237–9}} Davis attributes Applewhite's success in convincing his followers to commit suicide to two factors: He isolated them socially and cultivated an attitude of complete religious obedience in them.{{sfn|Davis|2000|p=242}} Applewhite's students had made a long-term commitment to him, and Balch and Taylor infer that this is why his interpretations of events appeared coherent to them.{{sfn|Balch|Taylor|2002|p=227}} Most of the dead had been members for about 20&nbsp;years,{{sfn|Lalich, ''Bounded Choice''|2004|p=28}} although there were a few recent converts.{{sfn|Lalich, ''Bounded Choice''|2004|p=42}}

Lewis argues that Applewhite effectively controlled his followers by packaging his teachings in familiar terms.{{sfn|Lewis|2003|p=126}} Richard Hecht of the [[University of California, Santa Barbara]], echoes this sentiment, arguing that members of the group killed themselves because they believed the narrative that he had constructed, rather than because he psychologically controlled them.{{sfn|Monmaney|1997}} In his 2000 study of apocalyptic movements, John R. Hall posits that they were motivated to commit suicide because they saw it as a way to demonstrate that they had conquered the fear of death and truly believed Applewhite.{{sfn|Hall|2000|p=181}}

Urban writes that Applewhite's life displays "the intense ambivalence and alienation shared by many individuals lost in late 20th-century capitalist society".{{sfn|Urban|2000|p=270}} He notes that Applewhite's condemnations of contemporary culture bear similarities to those of [[Jean Baudrillard]] at times, particularly their shared nihilist views.{{sfn|Urban|2000|pp=291–2}} Urban posits that Applewhite found no way other than suicide to escape the society that surrounded him and states that death offered him a way to escape its "endless circle of seduction and consumption".{{sfn|Urban|2000|p=271}}

While covering the suicides, several media outlets focused on Applewhite's sexuality;{{sfn|Dahir|1997|pp=35–7}} the ''[[New York Post]]'' dubbed him "the Gay Guru".{{sfn|Lippert|1997|p=31}} Gay rights activist [[Troy Perry]] argued that Applewhite's repression, and society's rejection, of same-sex relationships ultimately led to his suicide. This idea has failed to gain support among academics.{{sfn|Dahir|1997|pp=35–7}} Zeller argues that Applewhite's sexuality was not the primary driving force behind his asceticism, which he believes resulted from a variety of factors, though he grants sexuality a role.{{sfn|Zeller, ''Prophets and Protons''|2010|p=122}}

Lalich states that Applewhite fit "the traditional view of a charismatic leader",{{sfn|Lalich, ''Bounded Choice''|2004|p=43}} and [[Evan Thomas]] deems him a "master manipulator".{{sfn|Goerman|2011|p=58}} Lifton compares Applewhite to [[Shoko Asahara]], the founder of [[Aum Shinrikyo]], describing him as "equally controlling, his paranoia and megalomania gentler yet ever present".{{sfn|Lifton|2000|p=306}} [[Christopher Partridge]] of [[Lancaster University]] states that Applewhite and Nettles were similar to [[John Reeve (religious leader)|John Reeve]] and [[Lodowicke Muggleton]], who founded [[Muggletonianism]], a millennialist movement in 17th century England.{{sfn|Partridge|2006|p=50}}