Life After Leaving a High-Control Religious Group: What People Often Experience
- Kylie Walls
- Sep 23
- 9 min read
Leaving a high-control religious environment is not always about stepping away from a fringe cult. Many people experience similar dynamics in mainstream churches where leadership misuses authority, manipulates through fear or guilt, or fosters a culture where questioning the leader is treated as questioning God. Whether fringe or mainstream, the psychological and relational impacts of leaving toxic and abusive faith environments are profound. Research shows that while departure can bring freedom and relief, it also often leads to grief, identity confusion, and trauma responses that may take years to heal (Gillieatt et al., 2023; Winell, 2011).
Identity Loss and Dislocation
High-control groups and authoritarian church environments often extend their influence far beyond doctrine. Leaders may shape how people spend their time, whom they trust, and even how they think about themselves. Robert Lifton (1961) described such systems as “totalist,” where nearly every part of life is filtered through the authority of the leader or organisation.
Leaving therefore involves more than walking away from a congregation. It can mean losing your social network, your sense of belonging, and the very framework through which you’ve understood your identity. Survivors often describe a deep sense of dislocation and grief, as they begin the difficult task of asking: “Who am I, apart from this system?”
Emotional and Psychological Impact
The emotional fallout of leaving a spiritually abusive environment often mirrors the experience of leaving an abusive relationship. Survivors report trauma symptoms such as anxiety, intrusive memories, and overwhelming guilt. Research into religious trauma syndrome (Winell, 1994; 2011) shows that people internalise teachings about obedience, sin, and punishment in ways that continue to generate fear long after they exit.
In mainstream churches, these internalised ideas about self and others may be subtler but equally damaging. Instead of overt commands, they may appear in sermons or statements from leaders who claim divine authority, often delivered with a condemning or accusatory tone. Unhealthy “discipleship” relationships can reinforce the expectation that loyalty to a leader is equivalent to loyalty to God. Systems may be set up so that questioning leadership is framed as questioning God. This creates an atmosphere of fear, where even reasonable doubts provoke anxiety. Over time, these dynamics erode self-trust, deepen shame, and make it far harder for individuals to rebuild confidence in their own discernment after leaving.
Complicity and Moral Conflict
In my earlier post, Why People Join and Stay in Spiritually Abusive or High-Control Environments, I discussed psychological experiments that shed light on complicity and our human tendency to conform to authority. Recovery can be further complicated when individuals recognise their own role in sustaining an unhealthy system. Those who held leadership positions, or who supported authoritarian leaders, may later regret how they acted toward others who raised concerns. This recognition often brings feelings of guilt or moral injury alongside the trauma of having been controlled.
Psychological research helps explain how complicity develops. Milgram’s obedience studies (1963) showed that ordinary people often obey harmful instructions when urged by an authority figure, even while showing signs of visible distress. Many participants later reported feelings of guilt, shame, or shock at their own behaviour, while others tried to rationalise their actions by pointing to the authority of Yale University or the experimenter. Similarly, in the Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971), students assigned as “guards” quickly adopted cruel and demeaning behaviours. Some later admitted they were disturbed by how easily they slipped into abusive roles, while others minimised their responsibility as “just playing along.” Prisoners, meanwhile, described lasting distress, humiliation, and anger at what they endured.
These studies highlight how people can be drawn into systems of harm, not because they are inherently abusive, but because powerful environments normalise obedience and silence dissent. For those leaving high-control religious contexts, this explains why they may have once participated in behaviours they now regret. Naming these dynamics doesn’t excuse the harm, but it does help survivors understand the pressures they were under and opens space for accountability, repair, and healthier models of leadership in the future.
Struggling to Trust Again
One of the most common and painful struggles after leaving a high-control religious environment is the difficulty of learning how to trust again. Many survivors describe feeling torn between longing for safe, supportive community and fearing that any new leader or group will turn out to be unsafe. This tension often stems from the way high-control systems distort trust — demanding unquestioned loyalty while simultaneously using fear, guilt, or shame to maintain power.
As a result, survivors may approach new relationships with leaders in confusing and inconsistent ways. Some may avoid closeness altogether, keeping authority figures at arm’s length. Others may fall quickly into old patterns of deference, only to feel anxious, suspicious, or betrayed when imperfections emerge. This back-and-forth can resemble the push–pull dynamic often seen in disorganised attachment, where a person deeply desires connection but also expects harm.
In spiritual or community contexts, this can lead to complicated relationships with new pastors, mentors, or leaders. Survivors may over-idealise them at first, then become hypervigilant to potential signs of control or misuse of power. While these reactions are understandable, they can create further distress and sometimes keep people from finding the safe, healthy connections they need.
Therapy can be an important space to untangle these patterns. By naming the fear, grief, and confusion that underlie struggles with trust, survivors can gradually build the capacity to form relationships that are both safe and life-giving. Over time, many learn to hold onto discernment without being ruled by fear — trusting again, but with wisdom.
Impacts on Family and Children
The effects of leaving high-control environments often extend into family life. Families may fracture when one member leaves while others remain loyal to the church or leader. Parents may grieve watching their children remain connected to a system they now view as harmful, while children may feel torn between family loyalty and religious allegiance (Scheitle & Adamczyk, 2010).
Children raised in authoritarian or high-control religious settings frequently face developmental and psychological challenges. Developmentally, they may struggle with autonomy, decision-making, and forming an independent sense of self. Psychologically, they may experience anxiety, guilt, perfectionism, and difficulty trusting others. Many carry fears of divine punishment or rejection that linger long after leaving the group.
Enmeshment is also common in these systems. Family identity often becomes fused with church identity, and children may grow up feeling responsible for their family’s spiritual standing. Healthy boundaries are blurred when children are expected to conform without question, report on one another’s behaviour, or bear the weight of family loyalty to leaders. This enmeshment can make separation and individuation especially difficult during adolescence and adulthood.
From a schema perspective, these dynamics often reinforce:
Enmeshment/Undeveloped Self Schema – children struggle to form a clear sense of identity because their lives are so tightly bound to family and church expectations.
Defectiveness/Shame Schema – condemnation and guilt foster a belief that they are inherently flawed or unworthy.
Subjugation Schema – obedience is prioritised over autonomy, leading to fear of asserting needs or questioning authority.
Unrelenting Standards/Hypercriticalness Schema – rigid rules create perfectionism and a constant sense of falling short.
Mistrust/Abuse Schema – experiences of hypocrisy or mistreatment lead to expectations of betrayal in relationships.
For families who leave a high-control environment together, recovery involves both grieving what was lost and intentionally rebuilding healthier relational patterns. Parents may need to support children in adjusting to new relationships and faith settings, setting boundaries, developing self-trust, and exploring beliefs in open, non-coercive ways. Though challenging, this process can help families break cycles of enmeshment and cultivate resilience, authenticity, and safety in their relationships.
Although many parents fear that leaving a faith environment will negatively affect their children, it can also provide a powerful model. When children see their parents standing up for what is right, making hard decisions for their own and their family’s wellbeing, and choosing to untangle from abusive systems, they learn resilience, courage, and the value of living with integrity.
Pathways to Healing
Recovery is rarely linear. For many, healing involves a period of re-evaluating and reflecting on their beliefs—asking new questions, sorting through what was harmful, and holding onto what continues to bring life and hope. Some people discover ways to reconnect with their faith in a healthier and more authentic form, while others may find grounding in different expressions of spirituality.
What matters most is that the process honours each person’s agency and values. For those who remain in faith communities, recovery may mean learning to engage with God and with others in ways that are free from fear, coercion, and shame. For others, it may involve finding safe spaces outside traditional religious contexts where meaning and connection can still flourish.
Research suggests that recovery is supported through trauma-informed therapy, safe community connections, and education about coercive control and thought reform (Langone, 1993; Gillieatt et al., 2023). Survivors often benefit from cultivating self-compassion, as the voices of shame and fear instilled by the group can linger long after leaving. Replacing these internalised critics with kindness and acceptance is one of the most powerful steps toward healing.
They can also benefit from schema therapy, which is a form of cognitive-behavioural therapy that focuses on identifying and reshaping deep-seated patterns of thinking and feeling (called “schemas”) that were often reinforced in high-control environments. For example, individuals may have internalised schemas of defectiveness, subjugation, or enmeshment. Schema therapy helps people recognise these patterns, connect them to past experiences, and gradually build healthier ways of relating to themselves, others, and—in many cases—their faith. By strengthening their sense of self as an autonomous person, schema therapy empowers survivors to replace fear and shame with self-acceptance, compassion, and resilience.
Why This Is Abuse
The dynamics described here meet the recognised definitions of emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuse. Emotionally, they undermine a person’s sense of worth through condemnation, accusation, and fear. Psychologically, they create dependency, erode self-trust, and provoke trauma responses when individuals attempt to question or leave. Spiritually, they distort faith by presenting human authority as if it were divine, using God as a weapon to control behaviour and silence dissent.
When seen through this lens, leaving a high-control religious environment is not simply about moving on from a church or changing theological positions. It is about breaking free from an abusive system that has shaped identity, relationships, and spirituality in harmful ways. Naming these dynamics as abuse validates survivors’ experiences, underscores the seriousness of the harm, and affirms the importance of healing.
Moving Forward
Leaving a high-control religious environment—whether a fringe group or an authoritarian mainstream church—requires enormous courage. It often brings grief, isolation, and painful self-reflection, but it also holds the possibility of growth, freedom, and renewed joy. With time, support, and compassionate care, many people discover not only recovery but a deeper sense of authenticity, purpose, and hope.
If you recognise some of your own story in what you’ve read here, you don’t have to walk this journey alone. At Refuge Psychology, I offer a safe and supportive space to process painful experiences, strengthen your sense of self, and find hope for the future.
👉 You can book an appointment here or reach out to learn more about how therapy can support you or your family.
Disclaimer: Any stories or examples provided are an example only and do not describe a specific client, person or event. Some of the information we provide on our website may be information related to health and medical issues, but it's not meant to be health and medical "advice". We provide this information for your general use only. While we try to provide accurate information, it may be historical, incomplete information or based on opinions that aren't widely held. Your personal situation has not been considered when providing the information, so any reliance on this information is at your sole risk. We recommend seeking independent professional advice before relying on the information we provide. Find the full terms of service here: Terms of Service | Curated Mind Psych.
References
Gillieatt, S., Ullman, C., & Sanderson, J. (2023). Religious trauma: A systematic literature review. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 26(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2023.2166645
Langone, M. D. (1993). Recovery from cults: Help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. W.W. Norton & Company.
Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of “brainwashing” in China. W.W. Norton & Company.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. Harper & Row.
Scheitle, C. P., & Adamczyk, A. (2010). High-cost religion, religious switching, and health among U.S. adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(3), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01517.x
Ward, T. (2011). The lived experience of spiritual abuse. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(9), 899–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2010.536206
Winell, M. (2011). Religious trauma syndrome: It’s time to recognize it. Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 4(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1754470X11000094
Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(72)90014-5
Comments