Abers Struggle to Perpetuate Delusion

Esther (caricature) and Jerry Hicks

Abraham, the group consciousness that Esther Hicks says she speaks for, claims that they are able to read people's energy. In fact, that's how they choose questioners at their workshops to sit in what Abraham supporters (self-described Abers) affectionately refer to as "the hot seat," a chair in front of Abraham where guests are able to sit and ask their questions. Abraham has said, "You could not be in that chair if you were not lighting up" (11/15/2008) and that they are "aware of everything that you're wanting to talk about" (05/22/2004). In a recent e-mail sent out by Abraham Hicks, they are even quoted as saying, "We always know what’s on the minds of those who participate with us in these real-time events." With Abraham choosing based on energy (aka vibration) and knowing "what's on the minds of those who participate," they will only choose people who are a match to the the hot seat. This is in theory, of course, because last week, during Abraham Hicks' San Fransisco workshop (02/05/2011), they proved that their alleged powers of reading energy are nonexistent. Instead of choosing people who were a match to the so-called hot seat, they chose several people who they had to kick out of said seat and send back to their not-so-hot chairs. This is particularly odd coming from an entity that regularly opens the Q&A portion of their workshops with the promise that, "There is nothing off limits. Everything is appropriate" (05/12/2007).

With Abraham on their new "Getting in the Vortex" shtick, it is possible that they wanted to speak with people who were "in the vortex" to keep the audience "in the vortex." However, with Abraham's self-professed energy-reading-abilities, one can only speculate as to why they didn't just call on those who they knew would have an "in the vortex" discussion with them (rather than finding those they had to send back to their chairs). One would think this would raise the brows of Abraham supporters, making them question the validity of this supposed entity. But no! In fact, quite the opposite. This week, Abers have rallied behind Abraham's decision to give hot-seaters the boot and called it a brilliant feat. "Only pure vortex expression allowed!" they quote (or paraphrase) eagerly. One Aber posted on a discussion forum, "it was really something to see people getting bounced out of the hot seat! Abraham was on fire." Another said, "Seeing people get kicked out of the hot seat was surreal but I totally LOVED it!!!" Others were a little more realistic: "It was fun. (probably not for the folks who got booted but maybe they learned a lesson of a different kind??)"

This is not the first time that Abers have had to rationalize away a situation like this. In a Florida workshop in 2009, Abraham kicked a man out of the hot seat (05/23/09). A workshop attendee reported on this instance via a forum:

He began by saying he had been chosen to ask a question on 9 different occasions . . . and that he was always first. “Abraham” then said, “We are done with you,” as Esther motioned for the man to return to his seat. The man begged to be allowed to ask his one question. Esther continued to motion him back to his seat. This went on for several interactions until the man finally acquiesced.

One particularly deluded Aber responded to the incident, posting, "While you might feel bad for the man, he's the one who ended up disallowing that interaction." Of course, this poster completely disregards the fact that in nearly 25 years of their work, Abraham has let countless numbers of "disallowing" individuals sit in the hot seat to discuss their "out of the vortex" problems on everything from health to relationships. Regardless of that fact, this rationalization fits perfectly with the listener-blame philosophy that runs rampant among Abers. They do not hold Abraham responsible for what went on at that Florida workshop or in the most recent San Fransisco workshop. It is, of course, the hot-seaters who wanted to talk about "out of the vortex things" who are to blame. I suspect that if Abraham were to pull out a gun and shoot a hot-seater in the face, Abers would accept that the hot-seater was in alignment with that experience, and therefore it was their own doing (not Abraham's).

Just as interesting as this, are reports of those who fought against hot-seat exile at the San Fransisco workshop. One workshop attendee reports that "as they [Abraham] threw people off the hotseat, they got to that guy who refused to leave and wanted to talk about dying! That was an extreme response (parallel in energy) to Abe's insistence that that was what they DIDN'T want!" Ironic that Abraham had to push away hot-seaters, considering their philosophy of not-pushing-against-anything (which they refer to as the Law of Allowing--lifted from the New Thought concept, the "Law (or principle) of nonresistance"). But once again, Abers are not all that concerned about hypocrisy or inconsistency with their dear leader.

If Esther Hicks is trying to test the devotion of her followers (though I doubt that is what she is doing), she will be very pleased to know that she can do anything she wants and they will have a quick excuse in-hand for her (or "Abraham's") actions. The delusion within the Abraham Hicks community has reached new heights, and with Abers unwilling to question their charismatic leader, one can only imagine the dangerous future ahead for those who have fallen into the Abraham Hicks trap. I have no doubt we will be seeing many more rationalizations for what happened at this particular workshop in upcoming weeks and as the CD is made available, but one thing is for sure; Abers will make up whatever excuse they can to justify their irrational faith in their false prophet.

*UPDATE* My friend Dave has written on this same subject. I highly recommend checking out his articles: Esther Hicks Presents Abraham the Bully, Esther Hicks Turns Mean with Abraham.