Editing Divine Light Mission (section)

==Reception==

The Divine Light Mission was described in various and sometimes conflicting terms. It was called a [[new religious movement]],<ref>Hunt (2003), p. 116; Derks and van der Lans (1983), p. 303; Wilson (1990), p. 209</ref> a [[cult]],<ref>Beckford (1983), p. 195; Langone (1995), p. 41</ref> a charismatic [[religious sect]],<ref name=galanter1999>Galanter (1999), p. 19</ref> an offshoot of [[Sant Mat]],<ref>Lewis (2004), p. 24; Edwards (2001), p. 227</ref> an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions,<ref>Guiley (1991), p. 152; Barret (1996)</ref> a youth religion,<ref name=Seiwert>Seiwert, H. (2004), "The German Enquete Commission: Political Conflicts and Compromises", in Richardson, James T. (ed.) (2004), ''Regulating Religion: Case Studies from Around the Globe'', New York, NY: Luwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, {{ISBN|978-0-306-47887-1}}, p. 86</ref> a [[Radhasoami]] offshoot,<ref>Miller (1995), pp. 474, 364; Juergensmeyer (1991), p. 207</ref> an orthodox [[Sikh]] community,<ref>Sutton (2005), p. 44</ref> an [[Advait Mat]] related tradition,<ref>Geaves (2002)</ref> a proselytizing religion ("Guru-ism"),<ref>Axel & Harshav (2004), p. 23</ref> and a defunct religious movement.<ref>Olson, Roger E., in Miller (1995), p. 364</ref> A study of terms used in U.S. newspapers and news magazines, which examined the media's failure to use the more neutral terminology favored by social scientists, found that the Divine Light Mission was referred to as a "sect" in 10.3% of articles, as a "cult" in 24.1%, and as both in 13.8%. It was referred to as a "sect" in 21.4% of headlines, with 0% for "cult".<ref>van Driel & Richardson (1988)</ref>

The president and spokesman of the DLM said in 1977 that "they represent a church rather than a religion".<ref>"Miami's startled elite wish the guru, in short, a pleasant stay", By Barry Bearak, Knight-Ridder Service, 30 July 1977. ''Independent Press Telegram'' (Long Beach, CA) A-11</ref>

In some countries, the DLM faced persecution and even banning. In 1972, in [[Argentina]], as part of a crackdown on small religious groups by the [[Argentina third military dictatorship|military junta]], 87 members of the DLM were arrested in [[Mar del Plata]] on charges of using drugs and practising their faith. The DLM, the Hare Krishnas and the Jehovah's Witnesses were banned, reportedly at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.<ref>Ferrara, Grace, M., ''Latin America – 1978, Facts on File''.</ref><ref>Gill (1998), p. 168</ref> The [[Government Junta of Chile (1973)]] arrested over 200 members, including 12 foreigners, in 1974.<ref>"Five sect leaders in Chile sent to desert prison camp.", Jonathan Kandell, New York Times, 24 March 1974</ref> The Jehovah's Witnesses and DLM were also banned by [[Singapore]] authorities.<ref>Mauzy (2002), p. 132</ref>

Bromley and Hammond described the Divine Light Mission as belonging in a "medium tension category", among movements that were seen by the public as peculiar rather than threatening, and to which society responded with watchfulness and ostracism.<ref name="isbn0-865-54238-4"/> [[Psychiatrist]] [[Saul V. Levine]] wrote that the DLM, along with other groups such as the [[Unification Church]], was widely held in low esteem – families felt their children were being financially exploited while the groups' leaders lived in "ostentation and offensive opulence."<ref>Levine (1989), pp. 96, 102</ref>

Ron Geaves states that the Divine Light Mission "developed into a vigorous new religious movement with its own specific traits that included characteristics of a contemporary North Indian [[Sant (religion)|Sant]] panth (sectarian institution) and [[nirguna]] [[bhakti]] was combined with intense reverence for the living [[satguru]] and [[millennium|millennial]] expectations of the western [[counter-culture]]."<ref name="Geaves2006" />

According to sociologist Pilarzyk the youth culture response – mainly from a decidedly leftist political perspective – was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Pilarzyk mentioned that these criticisms usually focused on the perceived phoniness of the "blissed-out premies", the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and physical condition of the guru. These accounts are described by Pilarzyk as being quite negative and full of distortions from the DLM's adherents point of view and drawing responses from them that varied from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. Positive comments came from youth culture "folk heroes" such as anti-war activist Rev. [[Daniel Berrigan]], radical lawyer [[William Kunstler]], and singer-songwriter [[Cat Stevens]].<ref name="Pilarzyk1978">Pilarzyk, Thomas. "The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory" in ''Review of Religious Research''. Fall 1978, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 23-43. [https://www.jstor.org/pss/3509939 At JSTOR]</ref>

Summarizing his 1985 review of studies of a number of new religious movements, such as [[The Jesus Movement]], the [[Unification Church]], the [[Family International|Children of God]] group in Europe and the Divine Light Mission, [[James T. Richardson]] stated that "life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful", and suggested that the young people attracted to these movements were affirming their idealism by their involvement. Richardson asserted that his review found there was little data to support the almost completely negative picture of these groups painted by a few mental health professionals and others.<ref>Richardson (1995), p. 147</ref>