Claims for ‘spiritual abuse’, either as a standalone claim or in addition to claims for sexual abuse or financial exploitation, are now being raised. In this post we look at how the concept is gaining acceptance and a recent case where it was considered by the courts in England and Wales. 

Spiritual abuse

The concept of spiritual abuse is fairly recent. The Church of England used the concept sporadically at first and provided examples in its 2014 guidance on responding to domestic abuse without actually giving a definition. The concept has now been adopted formally by the Church of England in its 2021 Safeguarding e-manual. This is described as ‘a form of emotional and psychological abuse characterised by a systemic pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour in a religious context’. The concept has been used in recent Church of England reports such as the 2023 investigation into Reverend Michael Hall or the 2024 investigation into John Smith QC.

In 2021 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) published a report on child protection in religious organisations and settings. This looked at contexts which might allow child sexual abuse to happen and at barriers to reporting – such as the use of religious texts and beliefs. The Department of Education had already published guidance on safeguarding children, faith and belief and a national action plan to tackle child abuse linked to faith or belief. But none of these documents used or defined the term spiritual abuse.

IICSA heard accounts of spiritual abuse in the Muslim and the Sikh communities and in the Pentecostal church, whilst the NSPCC identified examples of spiritual abuse in relation to Hindu and Buddhist communities. The concept itself has now been recognised by the Methodist Church and the Baptist Church and is getting recognised more widely. Last November, Pope Francis asked the Vatican to study if the Catholic Church should classify spiritual abuse as a new Catholic crime. 

Recent caselaw

In a recent case before the High Court - Samrai and others v Kalia - seven claimants brought claims alleging spiritual abuse, financial abuse and sexual abuse against a priest of the Temple to a small Hindu sect (the Baba Balak tradition) in Coventry. 

The claimants were all worshippers of the Temple at the time of the alleged abuse which spanned from 1992 to 2016. Four of them alleged that the priest would rape or sexually assault them and force them to have intercourse to which they could not consent due to the undue influence he exerted over them. Some alleged that they were sexually assaulted in childhood and that the abuse continued into adulthood. They also alleged financial abuse when they performed unpaid work or incurred financial outlay when they travelled to India. The last three claimants were some of the parents and also alleged similar financial abuse. 

The judge looked carefully at the religious practices of the Temple and the evidence before him. 

He also considered expert evidence carefully and rejected the evidence of the claimants’ expert Dr Jacqueline Blyth (psychologist) in its entirety. He rejected the existence of ‘Religious Trauma Syndrome’ or spiritual abuse at paragraph 258 of his judgment:

“Then, in answer to questions from Ms Crowther KC, Dr Blyth accepted that the origin of “Religious Trauma Syndrome” (“RTS”) was an article by a Dr Marlene Winell headed “Religious Trauma Syndrome: It’s time to recognise it”. Although, on this occasion, Dr Blyth did reference the article, she referenced a 2014 article when it seems clear that the article was in fact dated May 2011 but I accept that Dr Blyth may simply have stated the date, 2014, in error. Again, there was extensive quotation from Dr Winell’s article. She had identified key dysfunctions in RTS as being cognitive, affective, functional and social/cultural and Dr Blyth said in her report that in the case of each of these four claimants, religious trauma had affected all levels of being including cognitive impairment, affective/emotional impairment, functional impairment and social/cultural impairment. What Dr Blyth did not acknowledge in her report was that Dr Winell has a business running weekend retreats and an ongoing recovery group online called “Release and Reclaim” for people recovering from RTS, therefore having a vested interest in identifying RTS as a bona fide symptom (even though not recognised in any of the standard classifications) and capable of treatment. She agreed she is not aware of any other academic writer who recognises RTS.”

The judge preferred the evidence of the defendant’s expert Professor Maden. He accepted Professor Maden’s comments on coercion of adults into sexual activity which read:

“I have of course encountered cases in which there has been coercion of adults into sexual activity. This would ultimately be a matter for the Court but in my experience it arises only when there is considerable control and restriction of freedom – as the ICD11 definition of cPTSD implies. It is not something that arises from simply asking people to do something while they are living and working at liberty.”

When he looked at the first claimant’s case the judge found:

“I do not accept that it is plausible that Ms Samrai was coerced into submitting herself to the defendant. She may have been persuaded to do so, and to have allowed herself to be influenced by the defendant’s teachings to consent, but that is a very different matter and, in my judgment, does not give rise to an action for damages.”

The judge was not persuaded by the claimants’ evidence: there were numerous inconsistencies and some of the claims were ‘patently exaggerated and included fictitious claims’. He found that the claimants were not credible witnesses and refused to disapply the limitation period. He rejected the claims. 

Conclusion

Although spiritual abuse is gaining increased recognition in the safeguarding community it is not a psychiatric diagnosis. The issue of what may or may not be spiritual abuse for the purpose of civil claims remains likely to be very fact specific. This case does not provide any significant guidance to assist organisations in determining when actions descried as spiritual abuse may be deemed to amount be actionable.