The spy who loved me. CESNUR betrayed by pro-Russian subversive group

Oleg Malstlev

Luigi Corvaglia

In early September 2024 I was the first one in the West to tell a strange story. I had written it in an article for my blog (read it here) and it was about what could be described as the mutual infatuation between the controversial leader of a Ukrainian cult, Oleg Maltslev, and the well-known Centre for the Study of New Religions (CESNUR). Readers familiar with the controversy surrounding ‘new religious movements’ may wonder why this liaison merits an article, as the Turin-based centre is no stranger to the loving care of such characters, so this affair does not seem to have the originality to make it news. Instead, the reasons for interest in this affair are manifold. To understand them, a brief summary of the facts is necessary.

In 2014, the ‘Association of Applied Sciences’, Maltslev's umbrella organisation comprising the three branches that carry on his complex mystical and pseudo-scientific system, came under heavy criticism from Russian and Ukrainian anti-cult associations. They had in fact collected complaints about abuses committed against followers of the self-proclaimed scientist. According to an abused script, the accusations of being a dangerous ‘cult’ that exploits its followers led to the immediate intervention of CESNUR to rescue the organisation. It works like Pavlov's dog with the bell. Replace ‘bell’ with ‘allegations of abuse’ and ‘salivation’ with ‘a priori acquittal impulse’.

The leaders of the most controversial groups can then cheer with the cry 'here come ours!'.

The fact that the mutual outpouring in this case was even more evident than usual is perhaps because it was the Russian organisations that accused Maltslev.

In fact, the traditionalist organisation from whose rib CESNUR emerged, Alleanza Cattolica, and the anti-Chinese magazine that the study centre publishes, Bitter Winter,

have a strong Atlanticist, or perhaps better pro-American and neoconservative connotation.

Meltslev and Introvigne in Odessa, 2016

Thus, in 2016, Malstlev was invited to Turin to the CESNUR headquarters; shortly afterwards, the favour was returned with a reception by the CESNUR director in Odessa, a visit that included a lecture to Maltslev's followers on the grim discriminatory actions of the ‘anti-cult movement’. It was all an exchange of bowing and scraping. The director of CESNUR, Massimo Introvigne, called Maltslev ‘a scientist whose scientific research deserves a lot of attention’, although it was quite clear that Maltslev's formulations were manifestly lacking in scientific validity. Take for example one of his scientific proposals, the so-called ‘analysis of fate’. The idea is, to put it bluntly, that ‘the genes of our ancestors of many generations are also present in our subconscious’ and influence our destiny, but Malstlev knows the system to change this destiny. The Ukrainian returned the compliment, calling him a star of great magnitude that ‘shines in the sky of Odessa’.

The following year, CESNUR invited one of Maltslev's associates, Olga Panchenko, to a round table on religious freedom in Rome. The year after that, in 2018, the Journal of CESNUR even published a monographic issue dedicated to Maltslev whose apologetic and absolving tones were not the subject of much effort at concealment.

Introvigne and Pachenko in Rome, 2017

In 2024, however, the unexpected happened: the Ukrainian press published the news (here) that, after a lengthy investigation, the police had gathered evidence of psychological abuse, blackmail, threats and harassment of followers and critics. This included the spread of pedophilia allegations, accompanied by edited audio and video files. One person even died of a heart attack.

The reader above, who did not see where the news was, may say that this is nothing new either, since CESNUR has already found itself in embarrassing situations of this nature before. Perhaps even worse, as when in 2019 it presented the FIRMA (International Festival of Religions, Music and the Arts) award to the already more than controversial Apostle Naasón Joaquín García, leader of the Luz del Mundo Church. A couple of weeks after receiving the award as a champion of human rights and author of charitable works, Naasón Joaquín García was arrested in Los Angeles on 26 charges, including human trafficking, production of child pornography and rape of minors. The trial ended with the apostle's plea bargain and his sentence of 17 years in prison. The Ukrainian one would therefore seem to be just a repetition of a bad one. In reality, the situation here is different. In fact, the real twist is not that the charges against Maltslev were true, but that the Ukrainian secret service arrested Maltslev's closest associate, Konstantin Slobodyanyuk on charges of ‘high treason’. In fact, the investigation had discovered that   Oleg Maltsev had set up a spy structure working for the Russian enemy, and even a military strike group operating in war territory. Maltslev was a fugitive. At this point, it becomes clear why this was news. However, nobody in the West talked about it. That is why I wrote about it, highlighting the irony inherent in the fact that CESNUR and its offshoots - and the like - have for years been waging a smear campaign against the community of scholars and activists working to expose cult abuse by claiming that the ‘anti-cult’ - as they call them - were hiding "embarrassing links to the Russian regime".

The discovery that CESNUR was, arguably unwittingly, exchanged thoughtful attention with an organisation engaged in guerrilla warfare and espionage on Russia's behalf was thus an example of how mocking fate can be. It was also a great and effective opportunity to highlight the counterproductive effects of CESNUR's prejudicial acquittal logic. Indeed, we are not talking here about the unfortunate situation of those involved in an inappropriate affair (‘heavens, my husband!’),  but the far more serious one of those who do not care about this eventuality ("don't worry, he's my husband"), but above all of those who only look for their alcove companions among controversial people. Defending someone is always good, provided you are sure of their innocence. Doing so simply because the object of one's care is accused by "personae non gratae" is not something that would do credit to a celebrated 'study centre'; even taking sides is fine, but it is not what one expects of scientists guided by scholarly avalutativity; indeed, this logic carries risks, including that of falling into ridicule, as we have seen.

To make a long story short: the article was published. Then the following things happened:

(a) My text was posted on Facebook by what Introvigne would call an 'anti-cult activist'. Introvigne himself replied to the post with numerous comments that were wisely tangential and skilfully avoiding addressing the merits of the remarks I had made, following the time-honored technique of smokescreens. I allowed myself a single comment, which can be summarised as the highlight of this method. My interlocutor replied briefly, confirming the shrewd tendency to avoid a real reply with few sentences that had little to do with the substance of my comment, and took his leave.

b) Within a few hours, the post was deleted on the recommendation of someone who denounced that it was not in line with social networking standards. It was not clear what these were.

c) The Kiev Security Services (SBU) announced that Malstlev had been arrested and gave details of the operation. The situation was far more serious than previously known. Malstlev's ‘combat units’ prepared the violent takeover of state institutions in Odessa by storming administrative buildings and attacking the Ukrainian defense forces from behind when the occupiers approached the port city.

I understand that many people do not want this story to be known. Of course, you can not blame anyone for being deceived. However, if there is a moral to this story, it is that uncritically and a priori defending a group simply because it is under suspicion or criticism is not a good guiding principle if you want to maintain your reputation as a serious and rigorous scholar. Today, those who flirted with the Ukrainian traitor find themselves in the same position as those who have to hide the tattooed names of old loves that have now become signs of their gullibility.