We thoroughly agree with Drs. Kaminer and Kaplan that Brother David was deeply troubled, that his history was fully manifest in his everyday suffering, that his character was problematic and vulnerable, and that his defenses were maladaptive. This is especially obvious in hindsight. We agree that Brother David was guarded and evasive about his "spiritual" life, even when pressed for details. We agree that cults are not "religions." We agree that cult participation may be an indication of serious psychopathology, either axis I or II, although we are also persuaded by empirical work suggesting that the profoundly coercive techniques of cultism make every individual potentially vulnerable to their effects, particularly when undergoing significant and disruptive life changes (1). We further agree that general psychiatrists and psychiatric consultants should be highly attuned to the themes and defensive styles and mechanisms of their patients in order to understand and help them. Finally, we agree that Brother David was "probably too enmeshed" in his cult experience to participate in treatment. In fact, Dr. Hollifield sought guidance on the case from two other psychiatrists, both of whom recommended therapy for Brother David and one of whom doubted that treatment would be accepted or helpful. Brother David rejected psychotherapy.