Universal Law solicitor and inept internet troll, Paula Fletcher, once told us that she’s not on ‘anyone’s payroll actually’. Perhaps it’s a partial truth. Perhaps Paula doesn’t charge ‘a jot’ for issuing false legal notices for Sergio the bogan messiah. Perhaps she donates her services out of religious devotion to his glorious multimillion dollar scam. But it’s more than that, isn’t it Paula?
Paula Fletcher is Emmalee Benhayon’s mum.
So how old was Emmalee when she went to live with the Benhayons, Paula?
She was a teenager, yes? Mid teens, is that right?
It’s a bit of a theme in Serge’s household isn’t it? An adolescent girl goes to live with the Benhayons and ends up married to one.
Miranda Benhayon was first. She moved into Serge’s home as an ‘elite’ tennis pupil in her early teens.
The cult’s aggression in trying to bully us off the internet and wreck our livelihoods appears to arise from their disapproval of our ‘insinuations’. But I’m not insinuating a thing. I’m asking questions based on facts. A large number of our readers are people who have or are related to children involved with UM. Apparently we’re supposed to feel reassured by Anne Cummings’ insistence that all the little girls who’ve gone to stay at Serge’s house are ‘fine’, and entities only rape the babies of people who drink liquor. We’re supposed to feel equally reassured that when I ask questions about the welfare of children and other vulnerable people targeted by the group, I am bombarded with intimidation attempts instead of answers. Retaliation overkill.
It’s hardly persuasive.
Let’s look at what we know about the Benhayon family.
They are insular. They don’t mingle. They don’t have friends, they have followers and/or investors. Has Miranda Benhayon ever been sighted out with friends, or out shopping on her own? Doing anything on her own? In the past twenty years?
The Benhayons work and work and work. Do they holiday? Serge puts his women to work as soon as they are capable of earning. His wife, Miranda, was earning her keep very young, wasn’t she Deborah? Natalie was learning ‘healing’ from age 15. Or was it 14? And if Paula isn’t on the payroll, Emmalee certainly is, doing everything from Eso-healing, to reception and marketing duties, to performing in the family burlesque.
I need to make it clear for the Esoteric lynch mob, I’m not objecting to the Benhayons working, but the sinister reality of Serge recruiting young women with no qualifications to earn for the firm – discouraging them from getting decent education and training that would give them the option of financial and personal independence. What will happen when the whole scam collapses and all the Benhayons have are their worthless EPA accreditations?
That’s how Serge maintains loyalty. He keeps family and the faith-full financially dependent.
Personal boundaries within the family are highly questionable, with Serge using his daughter or a similarly young girl as a treatment model for techniques featuring inappropriate touching. Young girls are regular house guests at Benhayon’s home. We have a list of names. Tibouchina told us Serge chose an adolescent girl as a treatment model for hands on healing demonstrations in front of hundreds of ‘students’. He could have chosen any adult. The same young girl was seen to be getting hugs from his holiness, the ‘voice from heaven’, and hanging around him in an unusually affectionate way. Tibouchina also noticed groups of adolescents around the UM clinic accompanied by Natalie Benhayon. We know from student notes, amateur social worker, Natalie pressured kids as young as twelve into group disclosures of drug, alcohol and porn use, and to talk about their sexual experiences. Tibouchina saw Michael Benhayon stroking the face of a young girl who wasn’t Emmalee at one of the events. Moreover, an anonymous commenter claims he had his genitals touched by one of the Benhayon sons at a workshop. We can’t doubt that when Serge teaches that technique -we have the workshop manual and the images to prove it – and his experience matches that of other readers – one of whom made a complaint along those lines to the HCCC.
UM’s response started with denying the images were authentic, then denying his hands were near the model’s ‘lady parts’, and later denying groping for the pubic chakra of sexual abuse victims is inappropriate. Always accompanied by the rote insistence on the ‘integrity’ of the World’s Teacher.
What goes on in the Benhayon household where young girls are regular house guests?
That’s not an insinuation but a valid question based on verified facts. Are young girls safe there? And why is the cult so relentlessly aggressive in trying to silence me?
Will they dare go public to deny our concerns, making the same lame excuses they made on their password protected sites?
If they have so much integrity, why are they at such great pains to hide it?
If a victim or their family comes forward, what kind of retaliation can they expect from the hundreds of loyal Brides of Serge and their defamatory propaganda?
The cult has refused to publicly address our questions, for good reason. They don’t have a reasonable response, as they’ve recently proved.
Alison Greig has responded to our questions about Benhayon’s 20 year habit of having young girls stay at his home on the *facts* site with the claim that our questions about the welfare of those young women is a ‘sexual obsession’. She then reckons it’s only ever been teenagers who’ve stayed there.
Except that we have student notes naming a ten year old girl who stayed in Serge’s home, and Anne Cummings telling me that she knows all the ‘kids’ who’ve stayed in Serge’s home and besides ‘they’re not kids anymore, they’re twelve.’
In what could be labelled as simply bizarre (if such allegations were not so alarming) Esther Rockett and Lance Martin regularly refer to ‘young girls’ and ‘teenage girls’ staying in Serge’s home unaccompanied, alongside ridiculous suggestions that ‘cult’ parents are lining up for their young daughters to be able to stay in Serge’s home…
With respect to Lance Martin’s and Esther Rockett’s other allegations about ‘young girls’ staying at the Benhayon home; the truth is it is no secret that teenage girls from interstate and abroad stay at the Benhayon home from time to time, often to do work experience at the Universal Medicine Clinic or to attend courses. The fact is Serge has always shared his financial success with others. His private charitable work will be the subject of much study one day. And a small part of his yet to be known private charitable work is helping the youth as much as he helps the many families, professionals and adults…
As he has stated – “helping our youth is a much-needed factor. Truly helping them requires real commitment and one’s personal success to provide very real inspiration”…
The question we have to ask about teenagers staying at the Benhayon household is – So what?
Putting aside the obvious fact that in most people’s minds there is nothing inappropriate about teenagers staying at the home of family friends, another pertinent fact that seems to be lost on Esther Rockett and Lance Martin is that the Benhayon household is full of young people with Serge’s two sons and their wives currently living there and it was not so long ago that Serge Benhayon’s sons and their girlfriends were teenagers themselves. Universal Medicine Facts site
There aren’t any teenagers living there, and there wasn’t any during the nineties either when Miranda went to stay there.
I’ve said it before. I would not send a teenager to stay with a family with such a warped sense of personal boundaries, or where the father has lurid fixations on underaged sexual violence.
This begs the question what exactly is inappropriate about young people staying in the home of other young people? This situation occurs all the time in homes all over Australia without people crying ‘sexual grooming’ and ‘paedophilia’.
I’ve certainly accused Benhayon of grooming behaviour, but we have not accused him of paedophilia. We’ve merely questioned his suspicious behaviour. And if any of us behaved that way the cult would be all over us.
It appears that from Lance Martin’s point of view and perpetuated by Esther Rockett on her blogs, the mere presence of girls anywhere near Serge Benhayon implies sexual impropriety and grooming behaviour despite there being absolutely no evidence to support such a view.
Benhayon’s sexual impropriety and grooming behaviour is not implied, it’s overt, as outlined above and as observed by numerous people who have had contact with Benhayon and UM.
11 thoughts on “Serge Benhayon’s young female house guests – updated”
And she’s not the only child of an over invested set of parents who is now betrothed to a Benhayon boy.
What is it with this family that house-guests and ‘students’ become the wives of the Benhayon males? First Serge, then Michael and now Curtis. Members SURELY you can see there is something a little unusual with that?
You’ve cast aspersions about us on your hate-blogs but strangely enough it is none of us married to a former teenage student, or who have young lasses staying over for the weekend.
And while I am on it, we’re not the one selling snake-oil cures along with repetitive and expensive courses with the lure of bogus accreditation. Are we?
Can I also mention, we are also not the ones claiming to know everything in the Universe… or be a new-era messiah. Think about that Caroline and Marianna when you’re accusing us of being narcissists. Maybe you should look up the term before you use it? And while you’re there, check out what a sociopath actually is. And then take a close look at the people around you.
Just because you’re not busted- yet- doesn’t mean your integrity is beyond doubt and you’ve been vindicated. It just means, you’re not busted… Yet.
UMers believe that they’re God, so set their own definitions / standards of truth, right and wrong. They’re right and everybody else is wrong. If anyone with courage & conviction dares question or challenge, they are esoterically stone walled, judged & now publicly condemned. With integrity & love.
The defamatory bogus ‘facts’ blog is now recycling their sparse material about me – I don’t know anything about cults, neither do the world’s foremost authorities and I’m a liar. They never specify what I’ve said that is a lie, except to say I lied about the ovarian reading which took place in room where only Serge and I were present.
They don’t answer the questions and they never mention the Four Lords of Form, or being raped by entities if they come into contact with too much ‘prana’, and they don’t call me the ‘evil lodge’, like they did when they thought no one was looking.
What they do say is that I’ve accused Serge of paedophilia. I left a comment on their site and asked them to quote me – find anywhere that I’ve called him a paedophile and present it.
I’ve called Serge a sexual predator. That’s easily proven – with the workshop manual images and a subpoena or two.
However, asking why cult members take their kids to presentations where he talks about sexual violence, or send their young daughters to stay in the home of someone who touches the genitals of sexual abuse victims and pretends it’s healing is not calling someone a paedophile.
It’s asking a good question.
And still no answers.
Just ‘Lifton didn’t know what he was talking about when he spent decades studying totalistic regimes and groups’ blah blah blah.
Serge’s marriage to an ex tennis pupil, who came to live with him at the age of thirteen, as a matter of fact, does raise questions: which isn’t the same as drawing conclusions perse.
However, a teacher or mentor should never, ever, cross that boundary. Besides the fact that this is a huge
red flag, it also is a turn off, if it comes to the men’s integrity. Why on earth should I, or anyone have to the defend the response it gives me, as well as other people in general, when they hear a fact like this.
Personally, I don’t have to draw conclusions if it comes to this one: I just don’t want a teacher, mentor, or person near my kids, nor myself who lacks certain boundaries in that respect. No matter how you look at it, Serge has a lack of normal boundaries; and letting your teenage, young adult daughter doing psychic readings in group sessions, is abuse or at best neglectence and ignorance; and down right dangerous to her future psychological health. Any true psychic healer can, and will tell you that. All the rest is bogus. Pure bogus. Plain and simple.
I trust that everyone reading and contributing to these blogs has sound motives.
Even if UM practices are carried out diligently with the purest of motives and intentions, by ignoring, denying or minimizing significant concerns raised, UM leaders SEEM to be unaccountable, dismissive and uncaring. (Especially when they judge others personal lives and and attribute sinister motives to anyone who questions or confronts them).
Those who’ve been psychologically and sexually abused (or witnessed the impact on others, professionally or personally) don’t always realise the insidious, destructive impact until years later.
Those who’ve been traumatised or grown up in unsupportive homes, are particularly susceptible to psychological harm and falling into other abusive situations.
A sound, analytical mind and psychological health is required to discern damaging behaviour and principles, including subtle or covert manipulation. (Psychopaths are adept at initially meeting unmet psychological needs for love and affirmation, before exploiting the vulnerable).
Those who’ve witnessed or experienced the effects of any form of abuse, may choose to strongly advocate for the vulnerable / unaware, including calling for improved practices, accountability and informed consent, despite the cost to themselves.
It seems that the concerns raised about UM aren’t going to abate: perhaps if UM openly and directly addresses all accusations (rather than discrediting the messengers), reviews, examines, modifies or ceases all practices and teachings which aren’t evidence based, or attributed to placebo or graded desensitisation and / or could be detrimental / misconstrued, respect may be restored.
Basing controversial practices and beliefs on “feelings” alone is risky (eg cannabis addicts “feel” their drug is good, despite objective evidence, including neuro-science, to the contrary). Suspending critical analysis for the cause of “love” is fraught. (Like a loved one in a domestic violence situation, we ideally empower her to make wise, safe and reality based decisions with accurate, evidence based information).
Hoping that charismatic Serge / UM has good motives / intentions (i.e. is well meaning but perhaps naïve or delusional) and not bad /evil, there seems to be multiple contradictions / concerns to be addressed:
For example, UM promotes “self responsibility”, yet many of their blogs blame legalistic, austere “churches” for their emotional / psychological ills (including low self esteem and depression). Distorted, out of context Bible teaching can be psychologically and spiritually harmful. However, could other factors such as poor health, inadequate parenting and / or “selective attention” (people notice what they already deep down believe about them selves) have also contributed?? (What about studies which indicate that those with a solid, love based Christian faith are psychologically and socially more well adjusted, stable and healthy?)
UM seems to disregard the possible effects of its own fear / guilt based teaching, the fall-out from which may not be evident for years. (Eg striving to be perfect to improve karma may be burdensome, costly and anxiety provoking. At least genuine Christians have free peace / joy from God’s unconditional love and reassurance that Jesus paid their “Karma” for eternity).
If UM is so concerned about the effects of legalistic, “church” teachings, why do they block those who attempt to address the misconceptions, distortions and inaccuracies by quoting God’s transforming words of love? (As Jesus said: “the truth will set you free” and “neither do I condemn you”).
If UM honestly attempts to answer all questions, is open to learn from others, allows alternative viewpoints for all to freely decide (or to at least provide valid reasons for not accepting alternatives), there may be increased trust that they are open to truth and what’s best for all under their care.
Sadly pychological, sexual & spiritual abuse has been perpetuated for centuries in the name of God / Jesus. It’s commendable that UM is helping some to recover and in touch with God’s essence of love. However UM is in danger of being seen to perpetrate similar abuses or worse. Constantly reviewing practices, policies and teachings in line with community expectations may help get them out of the spotlight. (Genuine “Christian’s” have had to take responsibility to be extra careful of their ways eg pastors not doing home visits / office interviews alone. Christians are encouraged to study God’s truths inc love, justice & compassion direct (decades later, still learning something incredible & new), as well as from His spirit within.
I can’t see any evidence that UM is helping anyone recover or to get in touch with anything worthwhile – it’s all prohibitions on human expression and spiritual blackmail. They only think they’re recovering, and only as long as they toe the line and don’t ask questions. As soon as they show any doubt they’re bullied and threatened with supernatural consequences.
I’d rather not see UM or any organization out of the spotlight. They all need to be open to public scrutiny – whether they’re a church, a school, a martial arts group, the scouts…
Ideally every community organization & home installs CCTV cameras (in all rooms, regularly spot checked by independent authorities), with drones outside every window for good measure. (I’ve been advocating this for years for abboiters). Anything to protect children & the vulnerable, or to at least publicly demonstrate awareness, concern & accountability. Shouldn’t be a problem if there is nothing dodgy to hide. How sad that our more enlightened society is coming to this 😦
Ideally we not only love ourselves, but consider the impact of our words & actions on others. Ideally we have the same sense of what is right & wong, good & appropriate. Ideally we have a willingness to moderate our behaviour or practices, if these cause harm or perceived harm to others. Ideally we seek to understand, without condemning or judging others. Ideally we take responsibility for our own motives, thoughts, words, behaviour & safety, but also advocate for, or empower the vulnerable, especially children & animals. (Ideally we wouldn’t need CCTV cameras, drones or accountability websites!)
yeah, I feel so reassured by Alison Greig’s apologism.
Nah, there’s nothing unsavoury about Serge having little girls over to stay – he likes to support them financially.
Sleaziest comment of the year – thx Alison. Good job you’re doing sticking up for his holiness.
So what’s his excuse for getting a fourteen year old girl up to be the hands on model when he could have chosen, oh I dunno, 300 adults?
We love it when you answer the questions, Alison.
Comments are closed.