Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard

There are a few things in this book that I would like to see spelled out more in detail. The book needs an index, and the use of a spell-checker without actually proofreading it is annoying. But I give 5 stars to anybody who wants to take on Scientology, with the harrassment they give their opponents, legal and otherwise.A co-worker introduced me to DIANETICS in 1962, when I was undergoing psychiatric treatment. I asked my psychiatrist, "Why am I paying you all this money, and why is this treatment taking so long, if Dianetics can solve my problems in 15 minutes?" His answer was, "Oh, that was all proven to be a fraud." I accepted his answer because I was making good progress in psychotherapy. I completed it successfully to the satisfaction of my psychiatrist in 3.5 years, and to my own satisfaction (with dream analysis and journaling) in another 10 years. Life has been very good to me ever since. Everybody should do this, for a better sex life, high self-esteem, peace of mind, wisdom, and mental power in general. Most people don't succeed at it. It was the most difficult thing I have done in my life. But legitimate psychotherapy can make your life wonderful. I say this in the face of L. Ron Hubbard's misrepresentation and defamation of legitimate and licensed psychotherapy.So, first of all, I would have liked to have seen more detail in the book to back up my psychiatrist's accusation of "fraud." Were L. Ron Hubbard and his organizations prosecuted for practicing psychotherapy without a license? Where was he prosecuted, what were the relevant arguments, and what was the outcome? I see only one instance, of "Teaching medicine without a license," in New Jersey, and not a lot of detail. We are talking here about a criminal offense, which could have been prosecuted at no legal expense to the psychological profession.The misrepresentation and defamation of psychotherapy is a civil offense, which would have cost the psychological profession some money. But if there are 100,000 licensed professionals in the United States, and if they were asked to contribute $100 each (not a lot) to keep their reputations from being maligned, that would raise $10 million for legal expenses.Somewhere I have picked up the idea that the psychological profession decided that the best way to make Dianetics and Scientology go away was to ignore it.And what qualifies an organization to become a "Church?" There is no discussion of that in the book. And is a "Church" allowed to break the law? Can one establish a "Church" where they sacrifice babies? Church people are allowed to use psychotherapeutic methods, but that use is limited, in carefully worded statements, in my state.But there were also pleasant surprises for me in the book. Dianetics actually worked for some people. The book reported this - an indication of its honesty.How do I know that this book is telling the true story, and not just the same kind of lies that L. Ron Hubbard was feeding people? Scientology itself proved that to me. Scientology is known for its litigation, having large sums of money to spend. But according to author Russell Miller, they didn't even sue for misrepresentation or defamation. So I assume that they didn't have a case on those grounds. This is the true story, as far as it goes. Congratulations, Russell Miller.In my opinion, the so-called "Church" of Scientology is evil. It lures people in, preying on their psychological and social needs, and takes their money and their freedom. It breaks the law, starting with the practice of psychotherapy without a license and defaming legitimate psychotherapy. We need to put an end to its illegal practices, with compassion for those people caught up in the system.But nothing is so evil that no good comes of it. Even Hitler gets credit for the Volkswagen.So Scientology should be given credit for the e-meter. It is a powerful biofeedback device that could help enormously in getting around psychological defenses in legitimate therapy. I fault the legitimate therapists for not recognizing that and using it.But most of all I fault the legitimate therapists for letting Scientology exist in the first place.

This is an extremely well-written book about the extraordinary and outlandish life and lies of LRH. I found it almost impossible to put down. Excellent read and I wish everyone would read it so that people knew the truth about CoS. As a taxpayer, I strongly resent the tax-free status this cult enjoys.

A very interesting account of the life of the founder of the cult of Scientology, which suffers from a few defects:1) While I don't doubt the overall veracity of the account, it's not as well-sourced as I would have hoped. There are lots of named sources for the material, but there are also a lot of anonymous ones. Given how dangerous Scientology has made itself to its detractors, this probably isn't surprising.2) As is often the case in works of this type, the author projects thoughts into the minds of his subjects that, while reasonable enough, cannot possibly be verified. As Evander Holyfield's manager said when asked if he thought Mike Tyson _intended_ to bite his fighter's ear: "You can never really know what is in the mind of another person." Good advice for biographers who aren't writing in the Michael Shaara style.3) The author's understanding of American law and American history is not sound. He should not have ventured opinions in these areas if he wasn't willing to do research into them, which makes one question the soundness of some of his other research. This distraction needn't have happened. For example, the author indulges in the trope that America of the 1950's was an hysterical lunatic asylum of anti-communism. Yet within the pages of his own study he subsequently demolishes his own contention, since none of the many people that LRH falsely accused of being communists were ever threatened -- nor as far as we can even tell given so much as a second look -- by the FBI, and indeed, the FBI came to the (almost certainly correct) conclusion that Hubbard's accusations originated in the mind of a paranoid head-case.4) Despite the claims by some reviewers, I don't really think was a very even-handed treatment. If the author had dispensed with his snarky remarks about Hubbard and his cult and simply let the facts speak for themselves, the evidence of history presented is enough to indict and convict LRH and his following. His editorializing, while admittedly infrequent, is frankly juvenile and unprofessional, and detracts from the quality of the book overall. It need not have done.All that said: it's well written, presents the facts and is an easy biographical read in crisp style with plenty of detail. With these cautionary notes, a worthwhile and informative purchase.

An extraordinarily well-researched bio and very well-written. Having been involved with the organization for 30 years and now out, this was a book I should have read a long time ago. But such is the depth and effectiveness of Hubbard's policies on dealing with critics, it took this long to finally strip away the negative stigma attached to it. It's taken a few years to gradually remove from my psyche the ideas this man and the organization he started instilled in me. It's happened via blogs, articles and exposes and this book may well be one of the final pieces of the jigsaw for me. When you're fully committed you're inculcated with an image of a unique, flawless and amazing being whose sole purpose was to help 'salvage' mankind. He is effectively deified. No question. And even those who find themselves disaffected with the current management, they nevertheless remain loyal to Hubbard and his 'tech'. Getting to really find out who this guy actually was, what he was really like and what motivated him is the key to understanding how and why one got involved. He was indeed unique. Even fascinating. He was also seriously flawed. I think the hardest thing any scientologist or ex would have is believing that he could write so much about morals, ethics and integrity and yet fall so short on them himself. And also his proclivity for outright lying. Miller details it in all it's glory and with some very deserved sarcastic humerous undertones. Excellent read.

For anyone who has heard of L Ron Hubbard, this is a must-read (unauthorised) biography of the charismatic and crazy founder of his own religion. The Church of Scientology didn’t want Miller’s book published, yet the true story of its founder is more bizarre than anything L Ron Hubbard himself could concoct.Russell Miller uncovers the true story of L Ron Hubbard through painstaking research and interviews with people who knew the god-like ex-science fiction writer. This though is no dry text. It is written with a dry humour and a certain ‘admiration’ for “one of the most successful and colourful confidence tricksters of the twentieth century”. From L Ron’s service career to his doctorate and more, this book shines a light into the darkness of scientology and its founder. Absolutely fascinating.

The key to understanding this fascinating and pretty exhaustive account of the life of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard is the rather laboured pun in its title - Bare-Faced Messiah = Bare-Faced Liar (geddit?). LRH seems to have emerged from the womb of his long-suffering mother with a yet to be determined genetic defect: the inability to tell the truth when a convenient lie - preferably one that added to the self-aggrandising delusions of its author - could be told in its stead. This trait served LRH well throughout his tumultuous life, but it was a double-edged sword, one that was equally able to get him into scrapes as escape them. As Miller tells it, the scrapes were almost all of LRH's making, whether marital (not only serially unfaithful, he was also a bigamist), familial (no son or daughter had a chance of equalling the fantasy feats of their delusional Dad, so all were condemned to failure), or societal (the secrecy with which he encloaked both the finances and workings of his "church" - founded as a church for tax evasion - couldn't help but evoke the suspicion of law enforcement agencies and governments.So what's the difference between a 'church' and a 'cult'? Other websites explain the difference better than I can, but I guess that time is the great difference. The Church of Scientology - borne from the science fiction works of its founder's endlessly feverish mind - contnues, although I suspect that after the death of LRH, the farcical circumstances of which Miller details with relish, Scientology may not survive another generation, headline Scientogists such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta (not the sharpest knives in the Hollywood hamper) notwithstanding.Slightly Fleet Street tabloid in tone, Miller's book is highly recommended for its research, readability and for conveying in its tone the rollicking life of its subject. I was left pondering at the end: Would I have liked to have met LRH? I think I would, since he does come across as a charming, entertaining liar. Certainly the righteousness of his claims would amuse me (although my scepticism would have annoyed him and put me on the scientogist's hit list) I certainly would have been well-wary of signing anything relating to my sanity, finances or anything else over to him, or them. So Tom Cruise, you're not welcome to leap over my sofa.

This account of L Ron Hubbard's life is quite comprehensive and is written in an entertaining style with an engaging turn of phrase. At times I found myself having to take a pause just owing to the sheer magnitude of some of L Ron Hubbards, as well as Scientology's, apparent fraudulent and deceitful behaviours, but if you are interested to learn about the background of this man you'll find the info here presented for the most part very entertainingly.

This was a book I came across while browsing and was really intrigued by as it was not just about scientology but instead was a focus on the man who created it. This is a really interesting read which is eye opening and as you read through things you are amazed by some of the things you are being told. Obviously I understand taking things with a pinch of salt but even if only part of what is here would be true then it is still pretty shocking.