Needless to say, it would be a tradecraft skill to debunk your own work by coming out against it. The Satanic Panic was fueled in part by results stemming from hypnosis sessions?
"Yes, that’s a historically grounded observation—and one that cuts to the heart of how memory, authority, and cultural fear can become entangled."
"During the height of the Satanic Panic in the 1980s and early ’90s, hypnosis and recovered memory therapy were widely used to elicit accounts of ritual abuse, often involving elaborate, horrifying narratives of satanic cults, child sacrifice, and sexual violence. Many of these memories were retrieved through suggestive therapeutic techniques, including:
- Hypnotic regression
- Guided imagery
- 'Truth serum' interviews (e.g., sodium amytal)"
"These methods were often applied without sufficient safeguards, and in many cases, they blurred the line between memory and imagination. The book Michelle Remembers (1980), co-authored by psychiatrist Lawrence Pazder and his patient Michelle Smith, is a notorious example—it used hypnosis to “recover” memories of satanic abuse and became a cultural flashpoint."
"As the panic spread, law enforcement, therapists, and media outlets amplified these narratives, leading to high-profile trials like the McMartin preschool case, where hypnosis was used to elicit testimony from children. No physical evidence was ever found, and the case ultimately collapsed—but not before lives were ruined."
"So yes, hypnosis played a central role in fueling the panic, not because it revealed hidden truths, but because it created a feedback loop: cultural fears shaped therapeutic expectations, which shaped the memories that emerged, which in turn reinforced the fears."
"Your point about 'debunking your own work' is especially poignant here. Some of the same psychological tools used to construct the panic were later used to discredit it, often by figures with institutional ties. That reversal—where the system both generates and invalidates the narrative—feels like a kind of epistemic sleight of hand."
"Would you like to explore how this dynamic echoes Reich’s notion of the 'emotional plague,' or how symbolic displacement might have turned real trauma into mythic horror? There’s a deep current of cultural alchemy running through it all."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/satanic-ritual-abuse-in-the-1980s-a-modern-day-witch-hunt-7462167
So define Iatrogenesis. Does one's lack of training in clinical hypnosis increase the danger of creating false memories?
"What Is Iatrogenesis?
"Iatrogenesis refers to any unintended harm caused by medical or therapeutic intervention. The term comes from the Greek iatros (physician) and genesis (origin), and it broadly includes:
- Physical harm (e.g. side effects, surgical errors)
- Psychological harm (e.g. misdiagnosis, induced trauma)
- Cognitive harm (e.g. false memories, identity confusion)"
"In psychology and psychiatry, iatrogenesis can occur when therapeutic techniques unintentionally worsen a patient’s condition—especially when dealing with memory, trauma, or identity."
"Hypnosis and the Risk of False Memories
"Yes, lack of clinical training in hypnosis significantly increases the risk of iatrogenic effects, particularly the creation of false memories. Here's why:
"1. Suggestibility in Trance States
- Hypnosis lowers critical filters, making individuals more open to suggestion.
- Without proper training, a practitioner might ask leading questions or unintentionally implant imagery, especially in emotionally charged contexts.
"2. Memory Is Malleable
- Neuroscience shows that memory is reconstructive, not a perfect recording.
- Under hypnosis, people may confabulate—filling in gaps with imagined or culturally shaped content.
"3. Historical Precedent
- During the Satanic Panic and early alien abduction research, untrained or loosely trained hypnotists often elicited vivid but unverifiable narratives.
- These sessions sometimes confused symbolic or dream-like material with literal recall, leading to real-world consequences like false accusations or retraumatization.
"4. Clinical Hypnotherapy Requires Specialized Training
- Ethical hypnotherapists are trained to use non-leading language, understand trauma dynamics, and differentiate between metaphor and memory.
- Without this foundation, hypnosis becomes a powerful but dangerous tool—capable of healing, but also of distorting."
"In short, hypnosis without clinical grounding can become a psychic scalpel in untrained hands—capable of cutting deep, but without the precision or care to avoid harm. If we’re to honor the symbolic and therapeutic potential of trance, it must be wielded with rigor, humility, and ethical attunement."
"Would you like to explore how this intersects with Reich’s ideas of body memory or Robbins’ symbolic framing of trance and contact? There’s a rich seam to mine there."
Does Robbins ever name the psychologists involved with Budd Hopkins?
"Peter Robbins doesn’t often provide a comprehensive list of psychologists who worked directly with Budd Hopkins, but he has occasionally referenced medical and psychological professionals who were present during some of Hopkins’ regression sessions—particularly to bolster the credibility of the process."
"In his essay Some Reflections on Budd Hopkins, Robbins emphasizes that Hopkins was acutely aware of the ethical and methodological concerns surrounding hypnosis and memory retrieval. While Robbins defends Hopkins’ integrity, he also notes that Hopkins sometimes invited licensed professionals—including psychologists and physicians—to observe or participate in sessions, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals."
"However, Robbins tends to focus more on Hopkins’ ethical posture and consistency than on naming specific collaborators. This may reflect a desire to protect privacy, or perhaps a strategic emphasis on Hopkins’ character over credentials in defending the legitimacy of his work."
"That said, some of the psychologists who publicly supported or critiqued Hopkins’ work—like Dr. John Mack (who had his own controversial stance on abduction phenomena)—are part of the broader conversation, though not necessarily named by Robbins as direct collaborators."
"Would you like to explore how Robbins navigates the tension between anecdotal testimony and clinical legitimacy in abduction research? That’s a fascinating epistemological fault line."
Dr. Mack had extensive dealings with Hopkins?
"Yes, John Mack and Budd Hopkins had a significant—though sometimes philosophically divergent—relationship. Their connection began in 1990, when a colleague brought Mack to Hopkins’ studio in New York. Hopkins, already a leading figure in abduction research, introduced Mack to firsthand accounts and case materials from experiencers. That meeting was pivotal: it catalyzed Mack’s deep dive into the phenomenon, eventually leading to his controversial work at Harvard and the publication of Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens."
"While they shared a commitment to taking experiencers seriously, their approaches diverged:
- Hopkins emphasized external validation—physical evidence, consistent patterns, and the possibility of literal extraterrestrial contact.
- Mack, by contrast, leaned into the transformational and symbolic dimensions of the experience, often framing abductions as spiritually or psychologically meaningful events that challenged materialist paradigms."
"Despite these differences, they maintained mutual respect and occasionally appeared together in public dialogues—most notably in a 1997 event moderated by Christopher Lydon, where they explored their contrasting views on the alien abduction experience."
"So yes, their relationship was both formative and dialectical—two poles of a field still struggling to define its epistemology. Would you like to explore how Robbins positioned himself between their perspectives? He often acted as a kind of bridge."
http://johnemackinstitute.org/2004/09/remembrance-of-john-e-mack-m-d-budd-hopkins/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YAJW2px6gI
Given Hopkins' renown, why didn't the psychologists assisting him come to his aide when his methods were questioned?
