Dagmar’s Survivor Story is one of the most painful and important pieces of testimony on my channel. She describes becoming severely ill while involved with the Hare Krishna movement, only to be left alone in a room to suffer until she finally found her way to medical help. Her story echoes thousands of others who have spoken about neglect, coercive control, and institutional harm within high-control religious groups.
So a commenter appeared under her video — someone identifying himself as Taruṇa Govinda Dāsa — and began dismissing her experience as “subjective perception,” it became a perfect example of how cult-conditioned thinking shows up in real time. This isn’t about him as a person. This is about the mindset he demonstrated — one that is common across Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, MLM cults, and yes, Hare Krishna when discussing its documented history of harm.
His comments are a case study in how high-control groups train members to protect the institution at all costs, even when confronted with survivor testimony and legal records.
The Full Exchange as It Unfolded
To understand the dynamics at play, it’s important to look at the Full Conversation exactly as it happened under Dagmar’s survivor testimony. What follows is a straightforward outline of the exchange, without interpretation or analysis — simply the sequence of comments and the positions expressed by each participants.
A user identifying himself as Taruṇa Govinda Dāsa began the thread by stating that he personally had not experienced abuse within ISKCON and believed most devotees had not either. He suggested that people who perceive certain behaviors as abusive do so because of their “level of humility, tolerance, and boundaries.” He added that if anyone attempted to abuse him, he would leave, and closed with a religious sign-off. “Hare Krishna” (of course).
I replied by identifying the comment as victim-blaming and explained that abuse is not determined by humility, tolerance, or perception. I referenced Dagmar’s medical neglect and cited documented cases of physical and child sexual abuse within the institution. I emphasized that dismissing survivors’ experiences protects the institution rather than the people harmed by it.
He responded by saying “shame on you for judging me.” He argued that ISKCON has both good and bad sides and that presenting only negative experiences creates a biased and misleading picture. He suggested that people who describe the group as dangerous are relying on subjective perceptions and encouraged others to “experience it themselves” rather than listen to survivor accounts.
I clarified that I was not judging his personal devotion but calling out rhetoric that minimizes harm. I reiterated the existence of legal cases, survivor testimonies, and institutional failures. I explained that framing abuse as a matter of attitude or perception is dismissive and that telling people to “experience it themselves” is a tactic used across many high-control groups. I stated that defending an institution at the expense of survivors contributes to the problem.
He replied that he acknowledges both the good and the bad within the group but believes presenting only negative experiences creates an “illusion” that the group is entirely harmful. He said this perceived imbalance is why he continues to comment.
I explained that I speak out about coercive control across many groups, not just one, and that acknowledging harm does not negate the positive experiences of others. I emphasized that peace for some does not erase harm for others. I reiterated that calling survivor testimony “subjective perception” is dismissive when there are documented cases and investigations. I stated that ignoring abuse reflects personal values and that I stand for protecting people over institutions.
He concluded by insisting that he “acknowledges both sides” but believes that discussing only harm creates a biased picture. He maintained that presenting negative experiences without positive ones “might do more harm than good,” and that this is why he continues to challenge survivor-centered discussions.
When you step back from the individual comments and look at the full exchange as a whole, a very clear pattern emerges — one that is not unique to this commenter, this group, or this video. It is a predictable sequence of responses that appears across high-control environments whenever abuse is mentioned. These responses are not spontaneous. They are learned, reinforced, and repeated because they protect the institution, not the people inside it.
The Pattern: How Members are Taught to Respond to Abuse
His replies followed a predictable sequence used in many coercive systems:
- “You’re biased. You only see the bad.”
This is a silencing tactic. It reframes documented harm as a personal flaw in the person exposing it. - “Thousands of people find peace here.”
This is the “good experiences cancel bad experiences” argument. But peace for some does not erase harm for others. Both can be true. - “It’s individuals, not the institution.”
This ignores decades of court cases, investigations, and survivor accounts documenting institutional failures, cover-ups, and systemic patterns of abuse. - “Abuse is just perception.”
This is where victim-blaming becomes spiritualized. It suggests survivors were harmed because they lacked humility, tolerance, or devotion. This is not compassion. This is indoctrination. - “Experience it yourself instead of listening to survivors.”
This line appears in every high-control group on earth. It discourages critical thinking and isolates potential recruits from outside information.
Victim-shaming inside high-control groups isn’t just rude or insensitive — it’s a mechanism of control. It’s how institutions maintain power, silence dissent, and keep members psychologically dependent. When someone responds to a survivor with, “You’re biased,” “It’s just perception,” or “You weren’t humble enough,” they’re not speaking from personal insight. They’re repeating a script designed to protect the system.
This kind of thinking is dangerous because it creates an environment where abuse becomes invisible, survivors become the problem, and the institution becomes untouchable. It is the perfect ecosystem for harm to continue unchecked.
The Psychological Impact on Survivors
Survivors of coercive groups already carry layers of institutionalized shame. Many were taught — explicitly or implicitly — that their suffering was:
- their karma
- their ego
- their lack of devotion
- their spiritual weakness
- their failure to surrender
When they finally speak out, they are often doing so after years of silence, fear, and self-doubt. So when a current member responds with:
“You’re biased.”
“You’re exaggerating.”
“It’s just your perception.”
“Others found peace, so you’re wrong.”
…it hits the exact wound the institution created.
This kind of response:
- reopens trauma
- reinforces internalized blame
- undermines their healing
- discourages future disclosure
- isolates them further
Survivors need validation, not spiritualized dismissal. They need to be believed, not corrected. They need compassion, not doctrinal policing. When their pain is reframed as a personal flaw, it becomes harder for them to trust themselves — and easier for the institution to maintain control.
How This Rhetoric Protects Institutions
High-control groups depend on narrative control. The moment survivors speak, the institution’s image is threatened. So members are conditioned — often unconsciously — to respond in ways that protect the group.
These responses follow a predictable pattern:
- Denial: “That didn’t happen.”
- Minimization: “It wasn’t that bad.”
- Spiritual bypassing: “You lacked humility.”
- Deflection: “Every group has bad apples.”
- Reversal: “You’re biased for talking about it.”
- Silencing: “Don’t listen to others — experience it yourself.”
These tactics are not unique to any one group. They appear in Scientology, NXIVM, Jehovah’s Witnesses, MLM commercial cults, and countless other systems where loyalty is prized above truth. The goal is always the same: Protect the institution, not the people.
When someone insists that harm is “just perception,” they are not defending reality — they are defending the group’s reputation.
The “Good Experiences Cancel Bad Experiences” Trap
One of the most dangerous rhetorical moves is the idea that:
“Thousands of people find peace here, so it can’t be harmful.”
This is a logical fallacy that appears in every coercive system. Every harmful group has members who thrive within it. Every abusive institution has people who feel safe inside it. A group can provide comfort to some and still be dangerous to others. Both truths can coexist.
But high-control groups cannot tolerate nuance. They require binary thinking:
- “We are good.”
- “Critics are bad.”
- “Survivors are biased.”
- “The institution is innocent.”
This black-and-white worldview is essential for maintaining control. If members were allowed to acknowledge both the good and the harm, the entire belief structure would begin to crack. So they cling to the idea that positive experiences invalidate negative ones — even when the negative experiences are backed by legal cases, investigations, and thousands of survivor testimonies.
The Spiritualization of Suffering
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of coercive groups is how they turn suffering into a moral spiritual issue. When someone says:
- “You lacked humility.”
- “You weren’t tolerant enough.”
- “You didn’t surrender enough.”
- “You didn’t chant enough.”
They are reframing the abuse as spiritual deficiency. This is not faith. This is psychological manipulation.
It teaches members that:
- harm is deserved
- suffering is purification
- abuse is karma
- questioning is ego
- leaving is betrayal
This mindset traps people in cycles of self-blame and silence. It also ensures that the institution never has to take responsibility for the harm it causes. When suffering becomes a spiritual test, the abuser becomes irrelevant — and the survivor becomes the problem.
Why Comment-Section Rhetoric Matters
People often underestimate the power of online comments, but in the context of cult recovery, they matter deeply. Comment sections are public spaces where survivors test their voice, reclaim their narrative, and seek community validation.
When a survivor shares their story publicly,, they are taking a risk. They are stepping out of silence. They are challenging the institution’s control. So when someone responds with:
“You’re biased”
“You’re wrong”
“You’re just exaggerating.”
“You’re just playing victim.”
…it reinforces the exact dynamics that harmed them in the first place. It tells them:
- “Your pain is inconvenient.”
- “Your truth is unwelcome.”
- “Your trauma is a threat to the institution.”
This is why calling out this rhetoric is not optional — it is necessary.
The Real Danger: Silence
The most dangerous outcome of victim-shaming is not the argument itself. It’s the silence that follows. When survivors see others being dismissed, shamed, or spiritually blamed, they learn:
- “It’s not safe to speak.”
- “No one will believe me.”
- “My experience doesn’t matter.”
That silence is exactly what allows abuse to continue. Institutions do not fear criticism. They fear survivors finding their voice. Victim-shaming is not just rude — it is a tool of control. It is how harmful systems maintain power. It is how abuse stays hidden. It is how institutions avoid accountability.
That’s why exposing this rhetoric — even in a YouTube comment section — is not petty or dramatic. It is part of the work of dismantling coercive control.
A Microcosm Of A Much Larger Issue
The exchange under Dagmar’s video wasn’t just a disagreement in a comment section. It was a microcosm of a much larger issue — the way coercive systems train people to protect institutions instead of people, to defend ideology instead of truth, and to silence survivors instead of listening to them.
The rhetoric we saw — the minimization, the spiritual blame, the dismissal of lived experience, the insistence that “good experiences cancel bad ones,” the accusation of bias — is not random. It is the predictable outcome of indoctrination, identity fusion, and the psychological mechanisms that high-control groups rely on to maintain power.
When someone like Dagmar speaks out, they are not just sharing a story. They are breaking a silence that was imposed on them. They are reclaiming their voice from a system that taught them their suffering was their fault. They are challenging a narrative that has been protected for decades.
When a current member responds with denial or spiritualized victim-blaming, they are not simply disagreeing — they are reenacting the very dynamics that harmed survivors in the first place. This is why these conversations matter. This is why calling out harmful rhetoric matters. This is why survivor stories matter. Because every time a survivor speaks, and every time someone tries to silence them, we see the system at work. And every time we expose the system, we weaken its power.
Dagmar’s story is not an attack on anyone’s faith. It is a testimony of harm. It is a warning. It is a truth that deserves to be heard without being dismissed, minimized, or spiritually reframed. Survivors do not owe institutions their silence. Institutions owe survivors accountability. and if speaking that truth makes some people uncomfortable, that discomfort is not a sign that the survivor is wrong — it’s a sign that the system is being challenged.
As long as people continue to defend institutions at the expense of the people harmed by them, these conversations will remain necessary. And as long as survivors continue to be met with denial, dismissal, or spiritual blame, I will continue to speak out — loudly, clearly, and unapologetically.
Because protecting people will always matter more than protecting institutions.
And telling the truth will always matter more than preserving anyone’s comfort.
By Beth Gibbons (Queen of Karma)
Beth Gibbons, known publicly as Queen of Karma, is a whistleblower and anti-MLM advocate who shares her personal experiences of being manipulated and financially harmed by multi-level marketing schemes. She writes and speaks candidly about the emotional and psychological toll these so-called “business opportunities” take on vulnerable individuals, especially women. Beth positions herself as a survivor-turned-activist, exposing MLMs as commercial cults and highlighting the cult-like tactics used to recruit, control, and silence members.
She has contributed blogs and participated in video interviews under the name Queen of Karma, often blending personal storytelling with direct confrontation of scammy business models. Her work aligns closely with scam awareness efforts, and she’s part of a growing community of voices pushing back against MLM exploitation, gaslighting, and financial abuse.
Leave A Comment