Editing Divine Light Mission (section)

=== In the West ===
Only a small fraction of the overall DLM membership lived in organized ashrams during its short history but several dozen ashrams were formed in the U.S., Britain, Europe and Australia. Ashrams were run by "general secretaries" appointed by the national office.<ref name="Pilarzyk 1978"/><ref>Messer in Glock & Bellah (1976), p. 64</ref> Each ashram had a "house mother" who oversaw cooking, washing, ironing, and food service but the normal isolation of the housewife and cook became a communal, everyone-pitchin-and-help festival.<ref name=autogenerated12 /><ref name=autogenerated10 /><ref name="Geaves2006" /><ref name="Messer in Glock & Bellah 1976"/><ref name="isbn0-19-512370-0"/> 
Followers ("premies") who lived in them often worked part or full time at ordinary jobs and gave a sizable portion – sometimes all – of their income to the movement. Ashrams typically had an associated business, such as a Divine Sales outlet and a Divine Service Company.<ref name=autogenerated8>Messer in Glock & Bellah (1976), p. 65</ref> The ashram premies became the core of the Mission in the United States, but the ashrams themselves were not a source of income, never becoming more than self-sufficient.<ref name="Price 1979"/><ref name="autogenerated10"/><ref name="Pilarzyk 1978"/><ref>Melton (1986)</ref> Followers wishing to stay in the [[ashram]]s established by Rawat were required to fill out detailed applications that focused on their trust funds, insurance policies, and other assets.<ref>{{cite news|title=The guru who minds his mother|first=Malcom N. |last=Carter|page=A6|work= The Stars and Stripes|date=4 November 1973|agency=Associated Press}}</ref>

In Australia in the early 1970s, a small percentage of premies lived in ashrams. Some premies choose to live in an ashram for a couple of months, to get into their meditation, and then moved out into households or shared houses. Ashram rules demanded celibacy and abstinence from meat, alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. Married people, as well as single, lived in ashrams and, in their case, the practice of celibacy meant that they had sexual relations only with their marital partner. About three hundred people chose to live in communal houses and almost all households were non-smoking, non-drinking and vegetarian and, in some, the finances and energies were pooled for the good of all. Each household made its own decisions about life styles and often contained students and married couples.<ref>Harper, Derek & Michael McDonald in Smith & Crossley (1975)</ref>

In addition to the ashrams, there were many more residences with less formality. "Premie Centers", were households committed to the Mission's activity that donated 30% of their income and followed dietary rules, but that allowed married, non-celibate couples and children, and which weren't subject to orders from the national Mission. "Premie houses" were informal households (with as many as 30 followers) held together by their shared commitments and values. Ashrams served as local coordinating centers for all the local devotees.<ref name=autogenerated8 />

Carroll Stoner and Jo Anne Parke wrote in 1977 of their visits to several ashrams that "there was no persuasion or cajoling for us to become part of this group. We did feel a sense of calm and peace in the ashrams.<ref>Stoner & Parker (1977)</ref> [[Marc Galanter (MD)|Marc Galanter]], wrote in 1989 of his visit to a DLM ashram that —

<blockquote> "The atmosphere in the ashram was indeed quite striking.&nbsp;... I was greeted in a friendly, even intimate fashion by people who were complete strangers. The intense communality of the members was immediately apparent, a quality that was clearly an important aspect of the group's function. One could sense a closeness among those present, and an absence of the minor tensions that would be expected in a setting where two dozen people were living in tight quarters.&nbsp;... Caring and intimacy, reflective of the group's cohesiveness, seemed to mute any expression of animosity.&nbsp;... I was made to feel as if I were entering a supportive envelope, to be protected from the rough edges of relationships in the outside world.<ref>Galanter (1999), p. 25</ref></blockquote>