Michael Laitman: Pseudo-Kabbalist, "Science" of Irrational Consciousness and the Rule of Kabbalists

Michael Laitman markets a single authoritarian system under three different names. He calls mysticism science: his candidate dissertation, defended in Moscow in 2004 in specialty 09.00.13, is titled “Kabbalah as a Form of Irrational Consciousness”, 202 pages on a subject the author himself defines as irrational. He calls the rule of kabbalists mutual guarantee. Unpaid labor inside the cult is concealed behind the same spiritual vocabulary: a mother writes that her daughter has been in the cult for about ten years and worked extensively for it without pay, while invoking Laitman’s own slogans about unity and reducing egoism.

To the outside world, Laitman’s system presents unity and mutual guarantee. In his 2006 book “The Last Generation,” he spells out the outcome: kabbalists head every committee and every channel of power, their decisions cannot be challenged, and majority opinion loses all meaning.

“The Science of Kabbalah” Facing Academic Scrutiny

The claim to scientific rigor was scrutinized even before academia stepped in. On February 15, 2009, The Seventh Eye wrote that Laitman presents his teachings as “science” even though they “fail every minimal scientific standard,” and that he is not a rabbi at all despite presenting himself as one. The title “Rav” is attached by his own followers: the Kabbalah La’Am website and his book blurbs: “Rav Michael Laitman, student and personal assistant of Rav Baruch Ashlag.” Haaretz August 22, 2012 recorded their acknowledgment: “even they acknowledge he never received rabbinical ordination, and the title of rav next to his name is only an honorary title.” The site calls him “professor of ontology and theory of being”; the documents below show what stands behind his credentials.

Four years later, a peer-reviewed academic journal dismantled the same claim. The “Tomsk State University Journal” published an article in 2013 by Alexander Cherepanov titled “History and Kabbalah in the Concept of M. Laitman” (No. 372, pp. 144–147): “Laitman is not a professional historian. By training, he is a biocyberneticist.” The article identifies “a mystical-religious interpretation of historical events and a missionary orientation of the historical process.” The full text is publicly accessible.

Laitman dates the Zohar to the 1st millennium and attributes it to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai; Gershom Scholem, founder of the academic study of Kabbalah, dated it to the late 13th century and linked it to Moshe de Leon. Cherepanov calls the claim that the book was destined to remain “concealed” until its appointed time scientifically unfounded. Laitman derives Lurianic Kabbalah, the Reformation, and technological revolutions from the growth of egoism and the work of kabbalists, which the paper characterizes as flawed, one-sided, and “ignoring economic, cultural, socio-political, and other factors.”

Six years later, the same author defended a candidate dissertation at Tomsk State University titled “The Historical Views of M. S. Laitman: The Mythological Component of Modern Historicism” (07.00.09, 2019, 242 pages), where “the problem of the scientific validity of Laitman’s approach to Kabbalah” is listed in its table of contents. The dissertation profile provides open access to the table of contents, introduction, and bibliography. In the introduction, a footnote cites Laitman’s own candidate dissertation: “Kabbalah as a Form of Irrational Consciousness”, 09.00.13, Moscow, 2004, 202 pages.

Biographical notes in Laitman’s books claim he graduated from the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute with a degree in “Biological and Medical Cybernetics.” Document photocopies analyzed in the introduction show he graduated from the North-Western Extramural Polytechnic Institute in 1971 with a major in “Electronic Computers” and the qualification of “Electrical Engineer.” The blurbs in his books and the official records do not match.

Four pieces of evidence align: an extramural polytechnic diploma certifying him as an “electrical engineer”; a dissertation on irrational consciousness; a peer-reviewed academic article detailing a mystical-religious interpretation of history and missionary intent; and a 2009 press column noting failure to meet basic scientific standards. Michael Laitman is a religious charlatan peddling mysticism under the banner of science.

In a footnote of the same dissertation, the Israeli television channel “Kan” conducted an investigation into Bnei Baruch, which “accused Laitman of insincerity, cultism, total control over the activities of his followers, complicity in the destruction of family relationships of his followers, contempt for women, and concealment of problems among his followers (cases of suicides and persecution of disobedient students).” The cult’s response was: “Official response of the association ‘Bnei Baruch-Kabbalah LaAm’ to the broadcast of the full version of the ‘investigation’ by the Kan corporation,” with the association placing quotation marks around the word “investigation.” Both documents carry the year 2017. The catalogue of accusations was already in the public domain, and the response to it was a denial, not a refutation.

This facade carries a physical cost paid by students. Inside the cult, it translates into routine: waking in the middle of the night, lessons from three to six in the morning, and commuting to work without sleep. How this regime is assembled is covered in the breakdown of the path into the cult. This is what students look like after such nights:

These people are expected at their regular jobs in the morning. Meanwhile, outside at the entrance to his center, what the public writes about Laitman looks very different:

In this photograph, people are protesting at the entrance to Laitman's center with signs reading: "Laitman and Milwidsky = concealment of sexual harassment and assistance in a state coup."

“Arvut” for the 99 Percent

In the summer of 2011, as Israel took to the streets in tent protests, the cult launched a dedicated public brand: “Arvut” (Mutual Guarantee). Laitman announced this directly on his personal blog: “The ‘Arvut’ Movement was founded by the ‘Kabbalah LaAm’ Movement.” At demonstrations, Arvut activists showed up with posters that, as religious scholar Tomer Persico noted, lacked any recognizable Kabbalistic markings.

The mechanics were documented by cult researcher Shay Ben-Tal in an interview with Persico on August 22, 2011. Six months before the protests, an initiative began under Laitman’s leadership to reach the “99 percent”. The approach had to be indirect, as free of threat as possible, avoiding words like “correction,” “Creator,” or “Kabbalah,” using instead simple, utilitarian concepts: how Kabbalistic ideas could benefit the individual.

Grassroots initiative turned into an organized operation. Field activists asked for guidance, and leadership began distributing clearer messaging. Ahead of the August 6 rally, phone operators at Kabbalah LaAm centers called members. The Petah Tikva center produced instructions on conduct and the slogan: “Neither left nor right, mutual guarantee above all.”

The link between “Arvut” and the cult was noticed even earlier. On August 8, 2011, blogger Hanan Cohen described the most organized bloc at the protests: printed T-shirts, ready-made signs, funding, and mobilization capacity; a reader tip led him to Laitman’s blog post. That same day, the blog “Minim” republished the finding: a single observation and its report, not two independent investigations.

The mechanism is documented: the brand was created by Kabbalah LaAm; the audience chosen in advance and labeled the “99 percent”; “correction,” “Creator,” and “Kabbalah” purged from outreach; messaging shaped by leadership; and “mutual guarantee” presented to the world.

“The Last Generation”: Power Beyond Appeal

What lies behind the word “guarantee” was written by Laitman himself. Shortly before the Arvut posters appeared, he described the outcome of the global process: “Towards a world government… The general government will be a government of sages, unified without division between great and small.” Persico notes that a similar structure appears in Laitman’s 2006 book “The Last Generation.”

In “The Last Generation,” the governance structure is spelled out literally, as The Seventh Eye cites in detail: kabbalists who have attained spiritual perception “will stand at the head of all committees and all channels of authority in society, and they will determine who continues on the path. There will be no possibility of appealing their decisions or replacing them. The concept of ‘majority opinion’ will not be relevant in this society in its simple sense.” Admission, by Laitman’s own criterion, requires understanding the necessity of submission to kabbalist leadership and willingness to obey it as a higher power.

This is a published political-religious program written by Laitman. Under his direction, “Creator” and “Kabbalah” are purged from street outreach; in his book, kabbalist rulings cannot be appealed and majority rule becomes obsolete. To the public: mutual guarantee. To insiders: authority with no mechanism for removal.

This ideology did not stay separate from politics. An investigation by Shakuf and The Seventh Eye on December 18, 2024 revealed an organized presence of cult members inside the Likud party and operations through party apparatuses. The analysis is in the article on the 50-million-shekel bill.

The Cost of Participation and Fear of Reaction

A parent with a child inside has two roads: outward or inward. Aaron Appelbaum chose outward: he wrote to the Ministry of Education that Laitman’s structure is a cult. Bnei Baruch responded with a defamation lawsuit. Two outlets wrote about the lawsuit, independently of each other. Ynet on March 4, 2016 covered it as the case from which affidavits by former members emerged. The Seventh Eye on October 25, 2017 covered it as one of the lawsuits by which the cult shuts down criticism, and by then the case had been running for four years. The plaintiff’s line in Ynet: Appelbaum defamed the nonprofit with libelous publications, and he himself is “a wealthy businessman who devotes all his efforts, his time and his money, from personal motives, to finding fault in the activities of the nonprofit.” Talking about the complainant instead of the complaint. Appelbaum’s attorney Ishai Shnidor responded in the same report: “This lawsuit is legal intimidation designed to scare people away from acting against them on the public stage.” That is the defense’s position.

The Seventh Eye lists Appelbaum’s co-defendants: a communications consultant, the website builder, the hosting provider, and former members who publicly criticized the cult. The plaintiff named is the nonprofit, not Laitman. He wrote the book in which kabbalist decisions cannot be appealed and majority opinion has no meaning.

Basya Iosifovna Perochinskaya wrote directly to Laitman. According to her, her daughter has been in the cult for about ten years and worked extensively for it without pay; when misfortune struck, her daughter needed medical and financial help. The mother does not threaten lawsuits or the press, asking for help using Laitman’s own vocabulary of striving for unity and reducing egoism:

"Rav, this was sent on fb I do not know who this is about

Dear Michael Laitman! My daughter has been in your organization for about 10 years. She worked a lot and for free for your organization. A misfortune has happened and today she needs help: medical and financial. Please answer me. I want to believe that your words about striving for unity and working to reduce egoism apply first of all to those who say them. Respectfully, Perochinskaya Basya Iosifovna.

P.S. I hope you will not start finding out her name, this will lead to a quarrel between us. If there is real help, of course I will name her. By the way, your night lessons take away health; systematically not sleeping is harmful, and you cannot fail to know this. https://www.facebook.com/basja.perochinskaja"

In the correspondence there is no direct reply to the mother. She is afraid to name her daughter: “I hope you will not start finding out her name, this will lead to a quarrel between us”; she will give the name only if genuine help is offered. And in the same letter, to Laitman about the night lessons: “systematically not sleeping is harmful, and you cannot fail to know this.” How a personal plea inside the cult becomes internal administrative traffic is shown in the email leak “How Should I Go On Living?”.

Leaving the Zone of Responsibility

The mother’s appeal through the internal management chain: her daughter, ten years in the cult, extensive unpaid labor. In internal work correspondence with Laitman’s personal address copied, reduced to:

“Mushi, who will answer?”

Later in the thread, staff member Irina Romanova proposes a draft reply in the first person, in Laitman’s name:

“I would answer this way: I do not force anyone to study, especially women. I do not even know what women study, where and when. I never taught women. She is probably confusing me with someone else.”

The draft: Laitman forces no one to study, never taught women, the mother is confusing him with someone else. The mother’s account of ten years in the cult and unpaid work is dismissed with this formula.

When a Person Is No Longer Needed

One device runs through the whole correspondence: translation into the cult’s language.

A dissertation on irrational consciousness was sold as science. The authority of kabbalists over every committee and channel of power was sold as mutual guarantee. A mother writes that her daughter spent ten years in the cult, worked without pay, alongside slogans about unity and overcoming egoism. The transaction flows one way as long as the member gives. As soon as help is requested, the facade vanishes: the draft reply reduces the plea to “confusing me with someone else.” Michael Laitman trades in unity only until unity demands anything from him.