http://ritualabuse.

us/ritualabuse/articles/an-empirical-look-at-the-ritual-abuse-
controversy-randy-noblitt-phd/

An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy

Randy Noblitt, PhD

Professor and Director Clinical Doctoral Program

The California School of Professional Psychology
Alliant International University in Los Angeles

Adapted in 2007 from a paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American
Society of Clinical Hypnosis, Fort Worth, Texas, March 18, 1998. This paper is an
expansion on a chapter from Accessing Dissociated Mental States (1998), a
privately published monograph by Randy Noblitt. .

© Randy Noblitt, Ph.D., 2007

Most empirical studies of ritual abuse can be divided into four categories. They
are studies of (1) the frequency of ritual abuse disclosures to professionals and
their beliefs about such reports; (2) suggestibility, rumor and iatrogenesis as
possible explanations for ritual abuse allegations; (3) ritual abuse allegations
made by children; and (4) ritual abuse allegations made by adults.

Studies have evaluated the frequency with which ritual abuse allegations are
disclosed to mental health and other professionals. A national survey of 2,709
clinical psychologists with memberships in the American Psychological Association
showed that 70% denied and 30% acknowledged seeing at least one case of
“ritualistic or religion-related abuse since January 1, 1980” (Bottoms, Shaver,
&Goodman, 1991, p. 6). The authors also found that among the psychologists who had
worked with at least one individual with allegations of ritual abuse, 93% believed
that the harm had actually occurred. This report was part of a series of five
studies later published by Goodman, Qin, Bottoms and Shaver (1994). The first of
the five studies involved a survey of a stratified random sample of clinical
members of the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric
Association, and National Association of Social Workers. The second study
consisted of a survey of district attorneys’ offices, social service agencies, and
law enforcement offices. The third study investigated the question of “repressed”
and later“ recovered” memory based on 490 cases from the first study of which 43
were described as “repressed memory” cases and 447 were “no repressed memory”
cases. The fourth study examined children’s knowledge of Satanic [1] abuse. The
fifth study investigated three types of “religion-related child abuse:” abusive
acts intended to rid the child of demons, clergy abuse, and medical neglect for
religious reasons.

From the data of their first study, these investigators concluded that 31% of the
combined sample of psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers had seen at
least one case of ritual or religion-related abuse. There were 387 child ritual
abuse cases, 674 adult ritual abuse survivor cases, 171 child religion-related
cases, and 234 adult survivor of religion-related cases reported. The authors
concluded that the adult ritual abuse cases “were consistently the most extreme”
(p. 4). Of the adult ritual abuse cases 33% reported cannibalism and 28% baby
breeding for purposes of ritual sacrifice. Among the adult ritual abuse cases,
they found that the victims were likely to be diagnosed with MPD. They also found
that child cases were “far more likely to be disclosed to authorities or
professionals, to family members or neighbors and to be linked to corroborative
evidence, but were less likely to be disclosed in therapy than adult cases” (p.
4). The authors concluded that the psychologists, psychiatrists, and social
workers who responded to their survey “overwhelmingly believed both the
allegations of abuse and the allegations of ritual or religious elements of the
abuse” (p. 6).

Their second study of district attorneys, social services and law enforcement
agencies revealed that 23% had identified at least one case of ritual or religion-
related abuse. “In general, the ritual cases with the most convincing evidence
were unlike the satanic ritual abuse stereotype” (p. 6). The authors expressed
surprise that “the conviction rate in ritual cases was almost as high as in
religion-related cases” (p. 7).

In their third study investigating the question of “repressed” and later

“recovered” memory they found that the “repressed memory” cases were more likely
to be “ritual cases” in comparison with the “no repressed memory cases.” However,
when they excluded what they called “outlier” cases, the “repressed” versus no
“repressed” memory effects disappeared.

The fourth study of children’s knowledge of ritual abuse showed that “children
have relatively little knowledge of satanic child abuse” (p. 10). Their fifth
study considered 271 cases of religion-related abuse. They found that in 94% of
the clergy abuse, 48% of the evil ridding cases, and 23% of medical neglect
included allegations of sexual abuse. They found that MPD and other dissociative
disorders were diagnosed in over 20% of the evil ridding and medical neglect
cases.

Another survey investigated reports of sexual and ritual abuse made to British
psychologists (Andrews, Morton, Bekerian, Brewin, Davies, & Mollon, 1995). Of 810
British Psychological Society practitioners who had seen sexually abused clients,
the investigators found that 15% had worked with clients reporting satanic ritual
abuse. Eighty percent of the psychologists who had seen one or more individuals
with a stated history of satanic ritual abuse believed the allegations. In their
national investigation of 270 cases of substantiated sexual abuse of 1,639
children in day care, Finkelhor, Williams, and Burns (1988) found 13% of the cases
involved allegations of ritual abuse. According to Jonker and Jonker-Bakker, “The
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Britain reported in
its 1989 Annual Report that seven out of 66 Child Protection Teams in England and
Wales were currently working with children victimized by ritualistic abuse” (1997,
p. 542). In a survey of the membership of the International Society for the Study
of Multiple Personality and Dissociation [2], Perry concluded that 88% of 1185
“respondents reported belief in ritual abuse, involving mind control and
programming” (1992, p. 4).

These studies show that the overwhelming majority of surveyed professionals

believe ritual abuse allegations. What would account for such a high degree of
concurrence? If these ritual abuse allegations are essentially false, then these
therapists are at best misguided. Some have argued that false ritual abuse
“memories” are implanted or created by inept or unethical therapists. If the
patients’ allegations are essentially true, then this high degree of concurrence
may simply reflect the professionals’ accurate assessment of their informants’
reports. I hypothesize that patients who make ritual abuse allegations appear to
be genuinely traumatized. In a study comparing 34 adult psychiatric patients
making ritual abuse allegations with 31 patients making no such allegations, I
found that the group making ritual abuse allegations had significantly higher PTSD
scores on the MMPI-2 (Noblitt, 1995). In their study of preschool ritualistic and
non-ritualistic sexual abuse, Waterman, Kelly, Olivieri, and McCord, (1993)
demonstrated that PTSD criteria were met for 80% of their sample of
ritualistically sexually abused children as compared with 35.7% of the non-
ritualistically sexually abused children.
The hypothesis that ritual abuse allegations are essentially false and the result
of suggestibility and social influence has been propounded by a number of
individuals (Mulhern, 1991, 1994; Ofshe& Waters, 1994; Spanos, 1996). However,
this hypothes is appears to be based on subjective opinion and speculation rather
than any research findings. It has never been shown that people who report ritual
abuse are particularly suggestible. It has also never been demonstrated that
therapists with such patients attempt to persuade their patients to believe that
they were ritually abused. Nevertheless, several studies are worth reviewing in
spite of their methodological problems. Jeffrey Victor (1993) described what he
calls Satanic rumor panics. Victor argues that Satanism is a frightening and
provocative subject to the general public and has been the source of numerous
rumors for which he cites examples from the popular press. Even Philip Coons, a
skeptic regarding ritual abuse allegations, comments critically of Victor’s
research: “Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell from Victor’s cursory review of
the evidence what really did happen at these 61 locations” (1997, p. 108).

However, Philip Coons (1994) contributed a study of his own on this question. He
retrospectively reviewed the psychiatric records of 29 patients who had made
allegations of Satanic ritual abuse. He concluded that 76% of the patients had
either DID or DDNOS but that he was unable to find any external corroboration of
the SRA allegations. Three cases he labeled delusional and four were categorized
as factitious. He concluded that in all but 2 cases “questionable” therapeutic
methods were used. Weir and Wheatcroft (1995) reviewed twenty cases where ritual
sexual abuse had been alleged. Based on their evaluative findings they concluded
that false allegations of ritual abuse occurred in 75% of the cases and true
allegations in only 25%. The primary weakness of these three studies is that they
rely entirely on the subjective interpretations of the authors. Whereas the
validity of the last two studies would depend on the ability of their authors to
accurately diagnose ritual abuse and/or find corroborating evidence; and the
extent to which the data they needed to confirm any true ritual abuse was
available. With no measure of inter-rater reliability, there is no way to know how
reliably or accurately these investigators interpret these data or of knowing
whether sufficient data were available to interpret.

Two other case studies merit attention although they suffer the same
methodological problems noted above. Coons and Grier (1990) described a single
case where an individual with ritual abuse allegations was instead diagnosed with
factitious disorder and Yeager and Lewis (1997) briefly present a single case of a
recanter. In the former example one must ask whether the patient’s inaccurate
reporting of particular events means that they were not abused or ritually abused.
In my opinion the characteristic features of ritual abuse include abuse by ruse
and deception. In the latter example it should be obvious that recantation is no
more intrinsically credible than an original allegation. It has been found that
individuals with well documented evidence of sexual abuse will sometimes later
recant and that many recanters, particularly with ritual abuse allegations, later
redisclose abuse (Waterman, Kelly, Olivieri, and McCord, 1993).

Some authors argue that there is no substantial legal evidence that the ritual
abuse of children actually occurs, and that most cases of ritual abuse convictions
are reversed on appeal. Michael Newton (cited in Noblitt, 1998a) accumulated data
on criminal convictions in the U.S. where allegations of ritual abuse of children
were made. He found cases of 145 defendants who were sentenced. Seventeen (11.7%)
were reversed on appeal. Newton argues that these reversals do not necessarily
indicate that the defendants were innocent of the accusations. In some instances
the decisions were reversed based on legal technicalities rather than factual
matters as to whether the abuse occurred or not.
Chronology of Ritual Abuse Convictions
Data Accumulated and Reported by Newton (1997)

Date Venue Convictions Guilty/Nolo Pleas

1983 Bakersfield, CA 4*
1983 Denver, CO 1
1984 Malden, MA 1
1984 Jordan, MN - 1
1984 Bakersfield, CA 5
1984 Richmond, VA - 1
1985 Pittsfield, MA 1
1985 El Paso, TX 1*
1985 Niles, MI 1* (1**)
1985 Bakersfield, CA 7
1985 Dade County, FL 1 1
1985 Richmond, VA 1
1985 Bakersfield, CA 1*
1986 El Paso, TX 1*
1986 Des Moines, IA 3 2
1987 Bakersfield, CA - 2
1987 Lehi, UT 1
1987 San Diego, CA 2
1987 Winston, OR 1
1987 Mt. Vernon, NY 2 (1*)
1987 Malden, MA 2*
1987 Memphis, TN 1
1988 Carson City, NV 2*
1988 Lincoln, NE - 1
1988 Maplewood, NJ 1*
1988 Santa Rosa, CA - 2
1988 Roseburg, OR 1*
1989 Nottingham, Engl. - 9
1989 Asheville, NC - 1
1989 Thurston County, WA - 1
1989 Stuart, FL 1 1
1989 Winston-Salem, NC - 1
1989 Edgewood, IA 1
1989 Roseburg, OR 1
1990 Prescott, Ont. 1 1
1990 Akron, CO - 1
1991 Prescott, Ont. 4
1992 Mansfield, OH 1 1
1992 Edenton, NC 1*
1992 Smithfield, NC 1
1992 Wenatchee, WA 1
1992 Austin, TX 2
1992-93 Prescott, Ont. 11 19
1993 Christchurch, NZ 1
1993 Wenatchee, WA 1
1993 Smithfield, NC - 1
1993 Edenton, NC 1*
1994 Martensville, Sask. 2
1994 Amsterdam, Neth. 2
1994 Edenton, NC - 2
1994 Canton, OH 1
1994 Hapeville, GA - 1
1994 Wenatchee, WA 3 13
1995 Meriden, CT 1
1995 Wenatchee, WA - 1
1996 Oxford, MS - 1
1996 Danbury, CT 1
1996 Virginia Beach, VA 1

Defendants convicted: 80 Guilty/Nolo Pleas: 64 (44% of total) Total defendants

sentenced: 144
*Reversed on appeal: 17 (11.8% of defendants sentenced);
**Guilty on new charge after reversal on appealShe also noted that among the
children’s allegations were their being molested by other children (n=11) and
being molested by strangers, daycare workers or a parent (n=11). Hudson identified
16 forms of abuse: (1) locked in a cage or “jail,” (2) told that their parents,
pets or younger siblings would be killed if they told anyone of the abuse, (3)
buried in the ground in coffins which they called “boxes,” (4) held underwater,
(5) threatened with guns and knives, (6) injected with needles, bled, drugged, (7)
photographed during the abuse, (8) tied upside down over a “star,” hung from a
pole or hook, burnt with candles, (9) perpetrators wearing blackrobes, masks, (10)
participated in a mock marriage, (11) defecated and urinated upon, (12) observed
animals killed, (13) observed torture or molestation of other children, (14) saw
children and babies killed, (15) had blood poured on their heads, (16) taken to
churches, other daycare settings, people’s homes,and graveyards for the ritual
abuse. Of these 13 children responded to at least one of the items, excluding
number 14. Four children reported number 14, seeing children and babies killed.

Hudson performed a second study. In order to control for the possible contagion
effects that may have occurred in her Ft. Bragg case, she conducted a telephone
interview of 10 other families, in different locations in the U.S. where ritual
abuse had been reported. All but two were daycare cases. She collected data from
these interviews which she combined with her Fort Bragg data. Thus, she had a
total of 11 cases. The following abuses and corroboration were reported:

Confinement in cage (n=10)

Threats (n=11)
Live burial in caskets, coffins, boxes (n=6),
Water torture (n=7),
Threats with guns or knives (n=10)
Drug injections (n=10)
Filming and still photography (n=11)
Bondage, locked in closets, hung by feet or wrists, spread-eagled over pentagrams,
tied onto upside-down crosses (n=7)
Abusers wearing masks and robes, carrying candles (n=11),
Mock marriages (n=6),
Defecation, urination, forcible ingestion of human wastes (n=10)
Witnessing animals tortured and killed (n=10)
Fake operations (n=6),
Children’s descriptions of the torture and sexual assault of themselves or others
(n=10)
Evidential medical examinations: findings commensurate with sexual assault (n=11)
Babies, small children killed, carved up, and parts eaten (n=9)
Transportation elsewhere for abuse; various methods of transport (n=10)
Sexual assault and terrorizing in churches, graveyards, other daycare centers
(n=10)
(Adapted from Hudson, 1991, pp. 11—21)Kelley (1993) compared three groups of
children in daycare: 35 allegedly ritualistically abused children, 32 children
reportedly sexually, not ritualistically abuse, and 67 children without any claims
of sexual abuse. She collected data from the abused children’s parents and
compared the results of the children with non-ritualistic sexual abuse with
ritualistic sexual abuse. She found that ritualistically abused children were more
likely to report more incidents, types and severity of abuse relative to the non-
ritual sexual abuse victims. She also found that ritualistic abuse was more often
associated with multiple victim, multiple perpetrator situations. Using the Child
Behavior Checklist (CBCL), parents reported more behavior problems and tendency
toward internalizing symptoms among both groups of abused children in comparison
with non-abused children. But the children identified as ritualistically abused
scored worse.

Jill Waterman, Robert Kelley, Mary Kay Olivieri, and Jane McCord (1993) did a six
year longitudinal study of 82 children who had made allegations of ritualistic
sexual abuse (RSA) in the Manhattan Beach, California area in comparison with 37
non-abused (NA) children and 15 non-ritualistically sexually abused (SA) children.
A variety of standardized and non-standardized questionnaires and interview
instruments were employed. They found that both the RSA and SA group reported
intrusive and highly intrusive sexual abuse. Additionally the RSA group but not
the SA group reported “terrorizing acts that included killing of animals, death
threats to the children or their families, sadistic acts and physical abuse, and
ritualistic acts that included Satanic activities” (p. 64).

Recantations occurred in 25% of the RSA and 23% of the SA children. This was the
case even though the perpetrator in the SA group had given a detailed confession.
However, 88% of the RSA group that recanted, later redisclosed abuse. The children
alleging RSA had more severe symptoms than SA children with significantly more
PTSD, depression, and aggressive behaviors. The RSA group showed less improvement
over time in comparison with the SA group.

A case involving 172 children who made disclosures in day care in southwest
Michigan was investigated (Bybee & Mobray, 1993; Faller, 1994). Kathleen Faller
gathered data from her clinical interviews with 18 of the children and Bybee and
Mobray reviewed the records of 106 children regarding interviews by state police,
community mental health professionals, and the department of social services.
Bybee and Mobray identified 62 (58%) children who disclosed that they had been
victimized and 53 (50%) children who reportedly observed others being abused with
92% of the children who were observed being abused also disclosing that they had
been abused. They found that children reported experiencing and observing acts of
:fondling, penetration, oral sex, sex with children, penetration of an adult,
threats of harm, being hit or hurt, being given medicine or bad food, bestiality,
as well as ritual acts. Among her sample of 18 children, Faller found “sadistic
acts (100%), threats of harm and death to children and their family members
(100%), use of drugs (56%), confinement (44.4%) and animal killings or injury
(22%)” (p. 22). Faller writes that when she compared the 18 children she
interviewed with children who were abused by a single perpetrator in a day care
center or day care home she found that significantly “higher percentages of
ritually abused children were reported to have sexual acting out problems, sleep
problems, emotional problems, behavior problems and phobias” (p. 22). Faller also
cites an unpublished report by Valliere, Bybee, and Mobray (1988) of scores on the
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) comparing the abused children with a comparable
sample of non-abused children from the community with clinical and non-clinical
norms. “The sexually abused children’s scores were generally comparable to those
of clinical norms, and significantly higher than non-clinical norms. Sexually
abused girls demonstrated improvement on the CBCL between times one and two, but
the boys did not” (p. 22).

Not all child ritual abuse research examines day care cases. Within the
professional and scholarly literature on child abuse there are two reports of what
Faller calls “community-based ritual abuse” (p. 23). She defines community-based
cults as “those whose membership is contemporary and often made up of persons of
various ages—children, adolescents, and adults in a particular community” (p.24).
Snow and Sorenson (1990) saw 39 children who described abuse in five neighbor-
based cults in Utah. In four of the five cults there were alleged incidents of
intrafamilial incest, perpetration by adolescents, and features of an adult sex
ring. No adolescent perpetration was found in the fifth group. Also reported was
forced sexual behavior, threats of violence, and multiple perpetrators and
victims. At least two-thirds of the children described multiple locations of
abuse, pornography, ingestion or other use of excrement, the espousal of Satanic
beliefs, magical spells and use of occult paraphernalia, animal mutilation or
killing, and the use of drugs. The abusers were generally viewed as respected
members of the community and many were religious leaders. Two of the accused adult
perpetrators were convicted and two adolescents pled guilty.

Jonker and Jonker-Bakker (1991, 1997) reported a case of the ritual abuse of
children in the Netherlands. The authors describe the allegations and their
observations regarding this case in Oude Pekela, a small town of 8,000 inhabitants
in northeastern Netherlands near the German border. Jonker and Jonker-Bakker
initially surveyed the families of 90 involved children six to eight weeks after
the initial disclosures. They gathered additional data from the families of 87 of
these children at 2½ and 7 year intervals after the first outcries had been made.
They compared their later findings with clinical information that antedated the
abuse and with initial survey results. They found that 20% of the children made
spontaneous disclosures. The list of reported abuses included the following
elements: sexual abuse, warnings to be silent, taking photographs, making
videotapes, tying up children, keeping children in extreme darkness, being
scratched, kicked, beaten, being drugged, animals being present, animals being
tortured, killed, babies being involved, babies being killed, adults being killed,
chanting, forced eating of excrement or semen, and supernatural powers being
claimed. “Almost one-third of the parents reported in 1989—1990 profound changes,
as if they were dealing with a different child” (p. 550). The symptomatic
behaviors of the children included: a poor sleep pattern, nightmares, night
awakenings, bedwetting, genital shame, masturbation, inappropriate sexual
behavior, swearing, aggressiveness, destructiveness, self-isolation, anxiety,
tongue kissing, torturing of animals, fear of being locked up, interest in fire,
fear of spiders, interest in devils, ghosts, the experience of words turning
around, and interest in death. The three most common symptoms among the boys were:
“poor sleep pattern (79%), waking during the night (79%), and aggressiveness
toward the surroundings (83%)” (p. 550). Among the girls, “the most exhibited
behaviors were poor sleep pattern (67%), anxiety, nervousness (77%), and
aggressiveness towards the surroundings (87%)” (p. 550). The authors also noted
that “If the Oude Pekela case had been a result of adult community hysteria rather
than real children’s experiences, then the behavioral changes would be expected to
escalate as a function of disclosures to adults. Instead, there was a decrease in
the number of changes in behavior following disclosure…” (p. 551). In this case
two arrests were made but there were no convictions. However, Jonker and Jonker-
Bakker noted that the chief of the police investigation team believed that 50% of
the 64 children investigated by the police “were certainly involved.” (p. 545). A
statement by the district attorney on January 21, 1988 is cited:

A total number of 98 children, 3 to 11 years old were interviewed. The statements

of 62 children were used in the further investigation. Finally 48 statements of
children remained, speaking of clear sexual abuse, where they had either submitted
to or been forced to perform on themselves or others. Many of the children told
about strong lights, lamps on poles, and seeing each other on TV. The justice
ministry concluded that it was nearly sure that photographs were taken of the
children. Against 18 children violence was used. The child abuse took place over a
period of several months. The justice Ministry thinks that four people, two men
and two women, were involved in the sexual abuse. (quoted by Myers, 1994, and
cited by Jonker & Jonker-Bakker,1997, p. 541)

Faller (1994) cites a study of intergenerational ritual abuse of children by Susan

Kelley. This paper, entitled Ritualistic Abuse: Recognition, Impact, and Current
Controversy was presented by Kelley at the San Diego Conference on Responding to
Child Maltreatment in January, 1992. Kelley investigated reports of 26 children
from 14 families. The accused abusers were parents, grandparents, great-
grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and siblings. Similar to other reports a
significant number of abusers were female (45%). “Sixty-one percent of children
were abused by two generations of older relatives, and 57% of cases involved
extrafamilial as well as intrafamilial offenders” (Faller,1994, p. 25). Reported
abuses included “terrorizing threats and acts (89%),including having spiders or
other insects placed on them; death threats (77%), making pornography (81%),
threat swith supernatural powers (89%), satanic reference (92%),animal killings
(54%), being made to ingest drugs (92%), songs and chants (69%), and being made to
ingest or touch excrement (85%)” (p. 25). Scores on the CBCL were in the clinical
range for 73% of the children on total problems, 81% on internalizing, and 50% on
externalizing scales.

Three studies have surveyed adults who allege to be survivors of ritual abuse
(Drisoll & Wright, 1991; Smith, 1993; Young, Sachs, Braun, & Watkins,1991). These
three studies appear to have investigated primarily cases of what some call
transgenerational ritual abuse. Lynda Driscoll and Cheryl Wright (1991)
investigated the experiences of 37 adult mental health patients who were allegedly
survivors of ritual abuse. Eighty-one percent had no memory of ritual abuse before
beginning therapy and of the remaining 13%, their memories were incomplete.
Dissociation was a commonly reported problem in this sample with 63% being
diagnosed with MPD, 34% diagnosed dissociative and 17% with “strong ego states”
(p. 6.) Eighty-three percent reported involvement in rituals by a relative with
their fathers (63%), uncles (41%), mothers (38%), grandfathers (35%), and
grandmothers (22%.) Other abusers included “doctors (54%), neighbors (41%),
friends of relatives (49%), church members (35%), police (27%), teachers (22%),
and morticians (19%)” (p. 6). Eighty percent stated that the ritual abuse began
before age six. The mean age was 6. The reported physical and psychological abuse
sincluded being “forced to drink blood (84%), tied up (84%), drugged (78%),
deprived of food (61%), forced to eat flesh (57%), forced to eat or drink body
waste (57%), deprived of sleep (54%), and given electric shock” (p. 8). Ninety
percent reported being exposed to confusing and degrading experiences. “Seventy-
five percent reported being isolated, 61% ejaculated on, 54% urinated on, 38%
defecated on, 50% put in coffins(46%with corpses), 44% buried alive, and 39% put
in graves”(p.8.)They were allegedly coerced into silence “by threats of harm
(84%), of abandonment (76%), death or mutilation of themselves(73%),death of
parent or relative (57%). Most victims reported they were threatened with
supernatural powers (62%), and they were told they had been magically altered
(51%) in a way that would end their lives if they ‘talked’ or disobeyed” (p. 8).
Seventy-four percent said they were forced to perpetrate.

Ninety-three percent were allegedly sexually victimized with reported abuses

including oral sex (89%), vaginal (84%), object penetration (81%), anal sex (78%).
They reported sex with adults (89%), group sex 84%), with animals (62%), other
children (54%), and corpses (38%). Eighty-four percent reported human sacrifice,
14% claimed they were breeders for sacrifices. The alleged affects of ritual abuse
included problems with trust (100%) and emotional intimacy (97%). “Eighty percent
mistrust family members, peers, males, and authority figures in general….Over
ninety percent reported chronic depression, anxiety attacks, obsessions and
suicidal behavior” (p. 9). Over 80% described feelings of “worthlessness,
inferiority, lack of assertiveness, and dirtiness” (p. 10). Roughly 70% state they
feel “helplessness, difficulties making decisions, embarrassment about themselves,
humiliation and hopelessness” (p. 10). Reported physical symptoms include
headaches (90%),insomnia and chronic back and abdominal pain(75%), acute
unexplained weakness(76%),catatonic spells(33%) episodic paralysis (37%),and
blackouts (50%). Eating disorders included: anorexia (30%), bulimia (30%), and
consistently over 20 pounds overweight (70%).

Another study conducted by Margaret Smith (1993) presents data on 52 adults who
reported being survivors of childhood ritual abuse. Ninety-seven percent reported
that “at some point in their lives, they were amnestic of their ritual abuse
experience” (p. 20). Smith found that perpetrators were reportedly fathers (67%),
mothers (42%), grandfathers (31%), grandmothers (23%),aunts(21%),uncles(27%),non-
family member physicians (33%),non-family member clergy (17%), and non-family
member teachers (17%).In her study of the occupations of the family and non-family
alleged perpetrators there were physicians (35%), teachers (25%), clergy (22%) and
police (15%). Sixty-five percent reported that the abuse began before age 4. The
following experiences of abuse were allegedly perpetrated against the respondents:
molestation or intercourse (100%), forced participation in group sex with adults
(96%), being tortured (94%), witnessing or forced participation in animal
sacrifice (90%), witnessing or forced participation in human sacrifice (88%),
sodomy (88%), being drugged during the abuse (88%), witnessing or forced
participation in cannibalism (82%), being forced totorture others (75%), child
prostitution (52%), child pornography (52%), being forced to breed children who
were later sacrificed (36%). Smith also lists “other forms of abuse mentioned by
ritual abuse survivors:”mental programming (21%), bestiality (17%), torture by
electric shock (13%), witnessing or forced participation in dismemberment or
mutilation of bodies (12%), being hung upside down (10%), being forced to kidnap
children from playgrounds (8%), hypnotism (8%), having pets killed(4%), having
psychic surgery (4%), and being lent to other cults(4%).

Young, Sachs, Braun, and Watkins (1991) studied the allegations of a sample of 37
patients, reporting transgenerational childhood ritual abuse. They found that all
reported sexual abuse, witnessing and receiving physical abuse or torture,
witnessing animal mutilation or killings and experiencing death threats. Ninety-
seven percent indicated forced drug usage. Other abuses included witnessing and
forced participation in human adult and infant sacrifice (83%),forced cannibalism
(81%), marriage to Satan (78%), being buried alive in coffins or graves (72%), and
forced impregnation and sacrifice of own child (60%). All of the patients had
severe PTSD and experienced dissociative states with Satanic characteristics.
Other psychiatric sequelae included survivor guilt (97%), indoctrinated beliefs
(94%), unusual fears (94%), sexualization of sadistic impulses (86%), bizarre
self-abuse (83%) and substance abuse (62%). The authors also reported some
corroborating evidence.

The most recent effort to quantify and qualify the experience of ritual and other
extreme abuse has been recently completed via the Internet. This undertaking was a
cooperative effort between social scientists in the United States and Germany,
Becker, Overkamp, Rutz, and Karriker, who developed an extensive questionnaire
available over the Internet for a period of three months to survivors of extreme
abuse. A second survey was developed and made available for a like period of time
to therapists treating survivors of extreme abuse and a third for caregivers of
survivors of extreme abuse. Preliminary data is impressive for the numbers of
survivors who participated, their range of ages (only those over 18 were eligible
for participation), the countries they represented, the universality of their
experiences, and their search for answers. Their preliminary findings were
recently described at the SMART conference in August, 2007 and will be further
discussed in a chapter of the forthcoming book, Ritual Abuse in the Twenty-first
Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political Considerations, edited by
Noblitt and Noblitt.
A final area of research has been developed (Noblitt1998a, 1998b; Noblitt &
Perskin, 2000) with a method for research and clinical application of
“programming” phenomena. I have identified specific cues and “triggering” stimuli
which have been shown to access dissociated mental states in certain patients
consistent with the reports of other patients who allege to be survivors of ritual
abuse.

Research on allegations of ritual abuse is important and needed because many

questions are as yet unresolved among mental health, legal, and law enforcement
professionals. Until we can better clarify this difficult and troubling subject,
we can continue to expect this area to be rife with problems and bitter
contentiousness. We will continue to hear that blameless individuals have been
unfairly convicted of charges stemming from ritual abuse allegations, or that
innocent children are being returned to abusive households because their outcries
are not taken seriously in courts of law.

References
Andrews, B., Morton, J., Bekerian, D.A., Brewin, C.R., Davies, G.M., & Mollon, P.
(1995, May). The recovery of memories in clinical practice: Experiences and
beliefs of British Psychological Society practitioners. The Psychologist, pp. 209—
214.

Coons, P.M. (1994).Reports of satanic ritual abuse: Further implications about

pseudomemories. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 78, 1376—1378.

Coons, P.M. (1997).Satanic ritual abuse: First research and therapeutic

implications. In George A. Fraser, (Ed.), The dilemma of ritual abuse: Cautions
and guidelines for therapists (pp. 105—117). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Press.

Coons, P.M., & Grier, F. (1990).Factitious disorder (Munchausen type) involving

allegations of satanic ritual abuse: A case report.Dissociation,3,177—178.

Driscoll, L.N., & Wright, C. (1991).Survivors of childhood ritual abuse:

Multigenerational Satanic cult involvement. Treating Abuse Today, 1,5—13.

Faller, K.C.(1994,Spring). Ritual abuse: A review of research. APSAC Advisor, pp.

1, 19—27.

Finkelhor, D., Williams, L., & Burns, N. (1988). Nursery crimes: Sexual abuse in
day care. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Goodman.G.S., Qin,J., Bottoms, B.L.,and Shaver, P.R.(1994).Characteristics and

sources of allegations of ritualistic child abuse: Final report to the National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. [unpublished manuscript].

Hudson, P.(1991). Ritual child abuse: Discovery, diagnosis and treatment.

Sarasota, CA: R & E Publishers.

Jonker, F.,& Jonker-Bakker,I. (1991).Experiences with ritualistic child sexual

abuse:A case Study from the Netherlands. Journal of Child Abuse & Neglect, 15,191—
196.

Jonker, F.,& Jonker-Bakker,I. (1997). Effects of ritual abuse: The results of

three surveys in the Netherlands,Journal of Child Abuse & Neglect,21,541—556.

Kelley, S.J. (1992, Jan.). Ritualistic abuse: Recognition, impact, and current
controversy. Paper presented at the San Diego Conference on Responding to Child
Maltreatment, San Diego, CA.

Kelley, S.J. (1993). Ritualistic abuse of children in day-care centers. In M.D.

Langone (Ed.) Recovery from cults: Help for victims of psychological and spiritual
abuse (pp. 343– 355). New York: W.W. Norton.

Mulhern, S. (1991). Satanism and psychotherapy: A rumor in search of an

inquisition. In J.T. Richardson, J. Best, & D.G. Bromley (Eds.), The Satanism
scare (pp.145–172). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Mulhern, S. (1994). Satanism, ritual abuse, and multiple personality disorder: A

sociohistorical perspective. The International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 265—288.

Myers, J.E. (1994). The backlash: Child protection under fire. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications. Noblitt, J.R. (1995). Psychometric measures of trauma among
psychiatric patients reporting ritual abuse, Psychological Reports, 77, 743—747.

Noblitt, J.R.(1998a).Accessing dissociated mental states. [monograph self-

published by J.R. Noblitt].

Noblitt, J.R. (1998b, March). Techniques for induction of trance phenomena without
suggestion. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Clinical Hypnosis, Ft. Worth, Texas.

Noblitt, J.R., & Perskin, P.(Rev. ed. 2000).Cult and ritual abuse: Its history,
anthropology and recent discovery in contemporary America. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Ofshe, R.,& Waters, E.(1994). Making monsters: False memories, psychotherapy and
sexual hysteria. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Perry, N.E.(1992).Therapists’ experiences of the effects of working with

dissociative patients. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of the
International Society for the Study of Multiple Personality and Dissociation,
Chicago, IL.

Smith, M. (1993).Ritual abuse: What it is, why it happens, and how to help. Harper
San Francisco.

Spanos, N.P. (1996).Multiple identities and false memories: A sociocognitive

perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Valliere, P., Bybee,D.,& Mobray, C.(1988, Apr.). Using the Child Behavior
Checklist in Child sexual abuse research: Longitudinal and comparative analysis.
Paper presented at the National Symposium on Child Victimization, Anaheim, CA.

Victor, J.S. (1993). Satanic panic: The creation of a contemporary legend.

Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Waterman, J., Kelly, R.J., Olivieri, M.K., McCord, J.(1993).Beyond the playground
walls: Sexual abuse in preschools .New York: Guilford Press.

Yeager, C.C.,& Lewis, D.O.(1997). False memories of cult abuse [letter to the
editor]. American JournalofPsychiatry,154, 435.

Young, W., Sachs, R.G., Braun, B.G., & Watkins, R.T. (1991). Patients reporting
ritual abuse in childhood: A clinical syndrome. Journal of Child Abuse and
Neglect, 15, 181–189.

[1]The reader may notice that the word “Satanic” is sometimes capitalized and
sometimes not in this paper. This apparent inconsistency results from the word
“Satanic” and “satanic” having different meanings. If one is referring to a
religion or system of worship in which Satan is the focal spiritual entity, the
term should be capitalized as with any other religion (e.g., Buddhism,
Christianity, Judaism, etc.). When the word is not capitalized, it refers to a
point of view, not particularly a religion, which is dedicated to evil. In this
regard, I prefer the capitalized spelling because most of the se patients are
alleging this to be a religion. However, other authors frequently do not
capitalize the word thus, when I am quoting or citing them, I will usually use
their capitalization rules, regardless of whether their usage conforms to the
above definitions.

[2] Renamed the International Society for the Study of Dissociation and later, in
2007, renamed again, the International Society for the Study of Trauma and
Dissociation.