Caution Cult – part 2

Originally posted in German on 12th September 2025

by Heinz Grill

Attacking others diminishes the attacker’s spiritual integrity.

How is it possible that Uwe Burka, Anneke Schammann and a medium are spreading cult accusations in such an immensely extensive way, arming themselves with every known cult-cliché and imposing their unsolicited letter on numerous anthroposophical institutions? There is a biographical explanation that is chronologically very easy to follow and there is a deeper esoteric cause that is rooted in karmic connections.

The description of the inner karmic background can and will probably be interpreted as an attack on Uwe Burka and Anneke Schammann. Many people today require that all spiritual research must be kept anonymous, without naming names, and that any form of debate be presented as generally valid as possible. The shepherd should no longer distinguish between goats and sheep. It is already a violation of personal rights if someone dares to engage in a debate about another’s work or express criticism of statements made in public. Hints, suggestive questions and generalising condemnations are sought after, but it must always remain general and no one should feel personally addressed. All opinions should drown under the meaningless podium of worldly public life without reflection, under the banner of tolerance.

Developing opinions in this way, with all manner of suggestions and anonymisation, has become a trend today and destroys the beautiful concept of adhikāra¹⁾adhikāra is the competence to strive towards the spirit out of individual aptitude and attunements. It is the loving devotion of the individual with their own potential in harmony with the universal. In this concept, the individual, the universal and the cultural find a particularly clear correlation. It prevents any cult-like behaviour. A threefold articulation, practiced diligently, protects people from ideological and fundamentalist tendencies. The concept of adhikāra has been developed to a high level at the Sun Oasis and therefore works directly against cult-like, institutional manifestations and group forming tendencies., which is still cultivated in demanding spiritual schools of yoga and in Eastern philosophy in general. Moralising condemnation is not justified in this concept, and persecution of others would be considered to be absurd and self-destructive. Uwe Burka and Anneke are completely unfamiliar with this wonderful concept of adhikāra and do not study the effects of personal actions on the afterlife and ultimately the spiritual world.

Yo yacchraddhaḥ sa eva saḥ – And whatever is that will, faith or constituting belief in him, he is that and that is he. (Bhagavadgita, XVII, 3)

Aggressiveness towards others, which is founded in the will, reveals the self-status, which equates to the attributes that a person ascribes to others. In his teachings, Gandhi differentiated between ahimsa, non-violence and himsa, violence, which he applied not only to outer actions but also to the way he expressed things. The great Indian legal scholar became very concrete, precise, almost scientifically accurate in his teachings on the value of independence, but he did not condemn the person – in this case the Englishman – who occupied India, but rather the overreach of colonial policy. Dealing with criticism seems to be one of the most difficult aspects of human interaction today. Every critical remark, no matter how objectively intended, appears like a personal violation. If a soul that is no longer among the living, such as the distinguished figure of Professor Karl Dieter Bodack, who accomplished remarkable things in life, was to be consulted, he could very clearly reveal from his experience after death, that criticism on an objective plane is sought-after and in a clear way the situation, as it has happened must be clearly called out with names. The world after death cannot tolerate levelling, relativising, cheap excuses or disinterest in the suffering of others. Persecution of others with all manner of denunciations without concrete evidence, solely for the sake of a personal lust for power, leads to a lack of soul-feeling, which particularly affects any basic spiritual feeling. Souls in the afterworld draw back from all those who believe they must denounce, condemn and publicly ostracise others. Behaviour patterns in which people never commit and yet project onto others, appear beyond, to souls in the afterworld, like a lack of their own centre, their core and true being.²⁾Criticism today usually takes the form of generalisations, emotional value judgements, that take place without consideration, and quickly formed judgements made out of group thinking or wanting to belong. From the afterlife, and even from this world, the soul wants to find a true perception and for this it needs to be named concretely so that the attention of the mental consciousness can be brought into a guidance. If, for example, Anthroposophists receive the letter from the two, Uwe and Anneke they can quickly withdraw from any opinion and say, in a detached manner, that they want nothing to do with this mudslinging. However, the deceased feel rejected and ignored by this statement. They feel a shadow entering their light body that obliterates any radiating movement. However, if the Anthroposophist considers the letter and realises that it is below the dignity of an anthroposophical debate, and names it as undignified and with this perception deliberately and consciously distances themselves from making any further judgements on the actions of the writers, the soul from the world after death perceives those who are left behind and feels a connection. This assessment is not biased, but merely results only from the evaluation of the documents and can and must even be received by a thinking, reasonable person.

Uwe Burka and Anneke Schammann certainly do not belong to those people who are as malleable as fresh willow branches and readily adopt the opinions of others. They are not easily influenced by the mood changing phases of the moon and appear to have no respect whatsoever for legal consequences. Clearly and unwaveringly, no matter how many critics they leave in their wake, they champion their pursuit on cults, condemning evil and exalting good. They use unbiased Anthroposophists to condemn the ‘subversive yoga guild’. They boast of great deeds and, according to their propaganda, seemingly occupy a leading position within anthroposophy.

The demands that the two of them formulate in their open letter and in previously presented letters are not ambiguous but unequivocally directed against the irreligious, evil and the bad. The right to express criticism is deemed reprehensible, as they both immediately consider it to be manipulation. Due to the circumstance that within Anthroposophy there is already significant polarisation and that Rudolf Steiner is more often relativised than taken seriously, a reasonable attempt to explain the situation, how it has come together and escalated, has to be perceived as an inappropriate attack.

My status as a person is now that of a murderer, a murderous cult leader, a black magician, an economic exploiter, an inflexible, authoritarian person with an intolerable character, endowed with sociopathic tendencies and an absolute, esoteric greed for power. Even my life’s work is portrayed as the product of artificial intelligence, and all my achievements and writings to date are dismissed as mere narcissistic self-promotion. The fate of cult accusations once made, is that the accused are always guilty. They are equivalent to evil incarnate, imprisoned in error and if they remain silent, this is interpreted, as a church expert on cults confirms, as an admission of guilt. Conversely, and if in return they actually dare to describe the circumstances with a name, to guide them into a clarification, they are once again guilty of further heresy, violence and aggression and deserve further sanctions.

Uwe Burka and Anneke Schammann cannot harm those affected – and there are indeed many, many thousands – because while they are sending their letters to every address they can find in their eagerness of self-propaganda, more successful books are being created, various topics are being worked on, positive human encounters are taking place, artistic, noble pieces of work are produced and, above all, successful seminars are being conducted. However, by sending out these pages laden with suggestion and embroiling people, without their consent, into a conflict that for them seems to be their highest priority, they bedew others with a drop of existential fear. Some readers will process these numerous pages and through insight and awareness thus reject them. Others, however, will either ignore them or like in an advertising campaign adopt the opinions from the two agitators. The affinity with fear is all the greater when it takes place under the guise of religious clarification and uses the elusive and insidious term ‘cult’. It is the astral body from two hyper-proactive individuals that sows a drop of fear into the emotional soul body, causing a silent rupture in the integrity of each individual’s connection to spirit. The letters do not contain any factual arguments but merely a pointed accusation against another spirituality, one that does not call itself anthroposophical, yet is in its principal elements deeply related to Rudolf Steiner. Those who receive these words of personal accusation, passionately or also dispassionately, at least in passing, unreflectively and without careful consideration, swallow these drops of fear. The term cult is always associated with an indefinable fear.

The consequences of this action by Uwe Burka and Anneke will cause many divisions in Anthroposophy. If the effects of the astral body are studied, this law, as it is sown in karma, becomes visible. Staying silent and attempts to thwart these actions are not the right route to take. The drop is a spiritual reality. Effects that are outwardly tangible are usually less penetrating, persistent and determinative than those that happen through suggestion and covert self-propaganda. This attack is being carried out ‘In the name of Anthroposophy’ and the way Uwe and Anneke have emerged, appears to be an inquisitorial call to action for everyone. For the first time in history a witch hunt against others is beginning and is labelled as Anthroposophical.

In the third part the karmic cause will be examined.

All drawings by Josefo