Coercive Control vs. Trauma: Understanding Renée's Cult Rankings

Why My Cult Rubric Measures Control, Not Emotion

RENEE'S CULT RANKING

When people see my cult ranking system, they sometimes assume it’s a trauma scale. It’s not. My rubric doesn’t measure the emotional pain a group causes—though many do cause immense suffering. Instead, it measures coercive control: the tactics groups use to limit a person’s agency, autonomy, and freedom.

The focus is on power—how it’s gained, how it’s held, and how it’s abused. This framework allows us to evaluate a group based on their systematic behaviours, not just their fallout. It’s possible for a group to be deeply traumatic without scoring in the highest tiers of coercive control—and that’s an important distinction.

Take OneTaste, for Example

Recently, I analysed OneTaste, the controversial “wellness” group accused of sexual abuse, labour violations, and manipulation. Many assume such a group would rank at the top of any cult scale. But using my rubric, OneTaste scored a 6—placing it solidly in “Cult” territory, but not in the highest risk categories.

Why?

Because my rubric is evidence-based. OneTaste lacked some of the most extreme markers across all 12 categories. For instance, there wasn’t evidence of round-the-clock surveillance, complete isolation, or violent enforcement of loyalty. Their practices were manipulative and exploitative—but not uniformly across all dimensions.

Still, let me be clear: sexual exploitation is a heinous crime. It is serious regardless of the group’s overall score. A group can rank as a 6 and still cause deep psychological, emotional, and physical harm. OneTaste shows that mid-range scores do not mean “harmless.”

A Personal Experience with a “4”

I’ve also worked in a professional environment I’d rank at a 4—a group that wouldn’t be classified as a full-blown cult, but that still left scars.

There was micromanagement, restricted information flow, punitive discipline, and a pervasive atmosphere of fear. Everyone felt the pressure. Some were left exhausted, distressed, and psychologically bruised. It was, in short, a group I’d call a “cult with a little c.”

This is where nuance matters. Groups that rank in the 4 to 6 range can still foster toxic environments, exploit people’s trust, and cause trauma. They may not lock people in a compound, but they can lock them into fear, shame, and silence.

The Higher You Climb, The Harder to Leave

The real tipping point comes at the higher levels of the rubric—7 to 10. That’s where you find the groups that are not just manipulative, but truly imprisoning. These are the groups where:

• Members are watched constantly

• Leaving is met with threats, stalking, or legal harassment

• Loyalty is enforced through fear, secrecy, and psychological warfare

  
  

In those cases, trauma isn’t just an outcome—it’s the currency. People who escape often find themselves unable to even speak about what happened to them, because the mechanisms of control were that absolute.

In my last blog, I discussed how these types of groups often involve psychopathic leadership—leaders who lack empathy, remorse, or conscience. These aren’t just toxic systems; they’re expert-level abusers running operations in the shadows.

Why This Rubric Matters: Understanding Coercive Control in Cult Rankings

The strength of my rubric is that it helps blow a hole in the smokescreen. It doesn’t rely on how hurt people feel (though those stories matter deeply). The cult rankings were devised with an emphasis on how coercive control behaviours could be clearly identified. It asks: What systems were in place? What tactics were used? Could people leave freely?

Because in the end, it’s not only about whether someone was hurt. It’s about whether they were free.

Even mid-ranking groups can hurt people badly. But when you see a group score in the upper range, you’re looking at something far worse. You’re looking at invisible chains, structural abuse, and systems designed to keep people trapped.

And that’s exactly why we need to shine a light.