Anita van Duyn, a former retail entrepreneur who left Science of Identity in 1994 after more than a decade with the group and knew Ms. Gabbard as a young woman, wrote a letter to members of Congress warning that Ms. Gabbard was “under the complete influence” of Mr. Butler, who, according to her, “hides ambitious political goals”. Ms van Duyn, who lives with her wife in California, said she left the group because Mr Butler was “only using his disciples as puppets for his personal gain”.
Like other critics, she was unable to say specifically what Mr. Butler’s political agenda was, although in 1977 The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that he had secretly supported a number of unsuccessful candidates for Congress and state office in Hawaii the previous year. He did not respond to requests for an interview.
In a statement, Alexa Henning, a spokeswoman for Ms. Gabbard, characterized questions about Ms. Gabbard’s religious background as “Hinduphobia.” She also sought to distance Ms. Gabbard from Science of Identity, claiming she “never was and is not affiliated” with the organization. “Smearing her for being in a cult is bigoted,” she wrote in an email.
In the past, Ms. Gabbard has spoken positively about her experiences with Mr. Butler’s group, challenging critics who call it a violent cult. “I never heard him say anything hateful or say anything bad about anybody,” Ms. Gabbard told The New Yorker in 2017. “I can speak from my own personal experience, and frankly, I thank him for the gift. of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given me and so many people.’
In the same article, Mr Butler praised her as the perfect “student of mine”.
In anticipation of Ms. Gabbard’s scrutiny before her confirmation, Science of Identity hired a New York public relations firm, 5W, to conduct an email campaign criticizing news coverage of the group’s influence on her as inciting “anti-Hindu hatred. ”, a message echoed in the White House.