Imagine science and religion connecting. Imagine technology and spirituality combining.

Now imagine that everything you ever imagined is possible. Scientology…there are higher states of existence.

(Scientology TV Super Bowl Commercial 2014)

I propose an overview and analysis of some of the most notable ways in which the E‐meter is presented in normative Scientology texts, including contrasting them with observations made by critics and scholars of Scientology. My goal is neither to simply paraphrase Scientology's official version of the E‐meter's workings, nor to debunk it. My ambition is to reflect in depth about its function and symbolic meaning within various Scientology texts, and to set an agenda for further exploration and discussion among scholars specializing in Scientology.

I reference the statements made by Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard (and in official Scientology literature), about the E‐meter's workings, as well as technical opinions about what it actually does. However, the core of this study is not constituted of general observations (or generalized guesses) about how the E‐meter is used in religious practice, or first‐hand scrutiny of it. In other words, this article is not based on an ethnographic or empirical study of the usage of the E‐meter; however, the philosophical examination it contains can complement and integrate any such research.

The first section presents an overview of Scientology and its teachings; a first, functional description of the E‐meter is offered. The second section reconstructs the E‐meter's history, with emphasis on legal troubles in the United States. The third section is based on Hubbard's presentations of the E‐meter. The fourth section sums up various criticisms leveled at the device by authors who negatively criticize Scientology. The fifth section presents some explanations of the device as they have emerged in scholarly literature. The final section addresses the criticism of Scientology as pseudoscientific (and of the E‐meter as pseudotechnology), as well as several symbolical values that technology and science carry with them in the E‐meter's representation and related teachings.

In the interest of clarity and of integrity I must emphasize that this article, while striving to cover uncharted territory both in new religious movements (NRMs hereafter) and religion and science studies, has no pretense of being exhaustive. Scientology's founder was immensely productive. Scientology is a multidimensional, multilevel, multinational, corporation‐like movement. Academic debate surrounding it is flourishing. Legal disputes are complex and numerous. I only mention salient historical events, I base the reconstruction of E‐meter literature on select texts, and I only take into account its legal troubles in the United States. This, rather than criticism, should stimulate further investigations.

DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

The initiatives and teachings that substantiate Scientology stem from the creativity of a science fiction author, the United States–American Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (1911–1986), still lovingly referred to by Scientologists as “Ron.” Hubbard, whom Scientology specialist Hugh Urban defines as an “American entrepreneur” and “spiritual bricoleur” (Urban , 26), released a self‐help psychological method called Dianetics (according to him from the ancient Greek terms for “through” and “mind” or “soul”) that he explained in articles appearing, respectively, in The Explorers Club Journal and in Astounding Science Fiction in May 1950 and in a volume later that year (Hubbard , , ). In Dianetics it is claimed that the human mind is impaired by engrams, mnemonic traces of traumatic experiences. The passive part of the mind where they are accumulated is called reactive, opposed to the active part, or analytical mind (Church of Scientology [CSI] 1998, 16). Through a procedure called auditing (from the Latin verb for “listening”), the engrams can be identified and eliminated, leading to the significant improvement of a person's potential for action and success (CSI 1998, 33–37). An individual no longer having a reactive mind is defined clear; before such a release an individual is defined as preclear (CSI 1998, 37).

Early on, Hubbard faced intertwined challenges to the recognition, doctrinal integrity, and financial success of Dianetics. His theories were not accepted by the medical establishment from which he initially sought approval (Wallis , 23; Atack , 125). When they gained visibility, they were accused of being pseudoscientific/pseudomedical (Urban , 64–66). Accordingly, harsh criticism of psychology and psychiatry as unscientific and inhumane became Hubbard's leitmotiv (Kent and Manca ). Practitioners began discussing, inventing, and implementing their own variants of Dianetics (Wallis , 81). With a series of practical initiatives, among the most important being the incorporation of three new organizations in December 1953 in Camden, NJ (the Church of Scientology, the Church of American Science, and the Church of Spiritual Engineering; Urban , 65), and with the adoption of new lexicon and narratives, Hubbard began presenting the movement as a religion.

In Scientology (according to Hubbard's explanation from the Latin term for “knowledge” and the Greek suffix denoting “study”) the human soul is defined thetan (according to Hubbard from the Greek letter theta representing “life force”), a spiritual unity that goes through a process of successive incarnations (CSI 1998, 17–18). The engrams are attributed to traumatic experiences or “incidents” undergone in lives dating back even millions of years. The thetans’ advancement on the path of improvement is defined in Bridge to Total Freedom (CSI 1998, 31, 56). The phases of such advancement through auditing are elaborated in great detail together with hierarchies, auditing procedures, and prices. One of the higher stages in the bridge is defined Operating Thetan or OT and is said to be able to control matter, energy, space, and time, or MEST (CSI 1998, 18, 37, 55, 104–09) that otherwise entrap thetans oblivious to their own creative power.

From a historical viewpoint, the Dianetics movement occurred from 1950 until the incorporation of the first Scientology churches. However, Dianetics and Scientology are separate subjects, the former (Hubbard's mental health system) being presented as the substudy and forerunner of the latter (Hubbard's applied religious philosophy). However, the lines between the two are at times blurred; most notably, the language and techniques of Dianetics show up in the OT levels.

Although solo auditing is also practiced, and although auditing is even performed in order to obtain enhancements at the highest levels of the “track,” it is usually a session that involves two people, a preclear subject and an auditor. The E‐meter plays a fundamental role in auditing and, hence, in Scientology's practices and beliefs. The incidents are “audited” through the device in Scientology language. In a handbook authored by Hubbard that I will later discuss in greater detail, it is claimed: “All incidents in this volume should be detected and audited with an E‐Meter. If it were not for the E‐Meter, these incidents would have remained undetected except in the haziest state. Without the E‐Meter, they cannot be audited with security or even safety for the preclear” (Hubbard [] 2007, 12).

There have been eight versions of the device so far (redesigned and repatented). The latest one, called Mark VIII Ultra, was released in November 2013. No perception of the E‐meter can be unbiased; any description is already an interpretation of it. Besides inviting my reader to observe the picture of an E‐Meter that accompanies this article (Figure ), I attempt here a basic description that will be integrated with further exploration. The E‐meter is composed of a principal body, or box, connected by means of two cables to two electrodes in the form of metal cans to be held by the preclear (they are available in different dimensions to fit the hands’ size including a version for children). It contains a battery (0.5/1.5 V). Once it is switched on, it sends a small electrical flow through the person who holds the cans. Variations in the flow result in the movements of a needle in the device's display. The auditor mainly operates two knobs: one, which is bigger, is called the “tone arm.” It finely adjusts voltage in order to keep the needle centered and better detect its motions; the second, smaller knob (“sensitivity knob”) operates on the flow's gain (i.e., its power or amplitude). The tone arm is adjusted throughout the session. The sensitivity knob, which controls the amplification of the needle movement, is set by the auditor at the start of the session and usually held at a constant for that session. The auditor does not measure and register values but rather interprets the needle's movements as a consequence of specific questions regarding past incidents the preclear is asked about. The auditor records and interprets needle behavior and phenomena, but also reads and interprets motion and lack of motion with the tone arm. The procedure is not left to the auditor's creativity or improvisation, but prescribed in Hubbard's writings in great detail; in fact auditors undergo intensive and meticulous training. During auditing, the preclear (or pre‐OT) cannot see the display, and answers are noted on documents that are not shown to them.

The picture shows a Hubbard™ Professional Mark Super VII Electropsychometer (E‐Meter). Copyright by David Touretzky, picture published with his permission; also available at .

Notwithstanding international legal problems that forced Hubbard to establish his headquarters on a small fleet constantly on the move, he nourished the Church's doctrines and practices through an inexhaustible production of books, articles, and lectures as well as publications controlled by him, though edited by others (Christensen ). Dissemination and recruitment became increasingly refined, including the involvement of celebrities and the usage of front groups presented as crusading against violations of human rights or drug addiction.

Hubbard also established marriage, naming, and funeral ceremonies (CSI 1998, 41–43); furthermore, he adopted symbols such as a special cross and priestly collars, and terms creating or emphasizing Scientology's similarity with extant religions (e.g., auditing was called pastoral care, and local organizations missions—CSI 1998, 61). However, Scientology was explained in a special lingo that its practitioners had to master and that marked Scientology's identity (Hubbard's neologisms, both newly created and newly conceptualized terms, can be estimated in the thousands).

After Hubbard's death, the leadership was assumed by David Miscavige (b. 1960), currently Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center that manages the trademarks and copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology (CSI 1998, 71). Hubbard has been sacralized: he is not worshipped as a deity, or even considered divine, yet he is considered the preeminent OT who stayed on earth long enough to show others the path. It is claimed that no theological shifts and changes have been introduced; one of the tenets of Scientology is that, since Hubbard's accomplishments were perfect, no deviation is liable to obtain the same results; therefore all critical discussion or creative elaboration is prohibited and sanctioned (Wallis , 230).

A major success achieved by Scientology after Hubbard's death was the church's recognition as tax‐exempt by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on October 1, 1993 (CSI 1998, 237). Scientology officially declares millions of adherents worldwide, yet anti‐Scientology activists as well as some scholars claim that such numbers are inflated by even counting people who have been enlisted once for an expression of interest, and that the real figures might reach at maximum 40,000 (see Urban , 205–06; Ortega ). Scientology, not recognized as a religion in most of the countries where it is present, has over the past decades come under considerable criticism by scholars, activists, politicians, former members, and journalists concerning, inter alia, legal cases of fraud and abuse, dissemination and promotion methods, status as a religion, claims regarding the scientific status of its doctrines, and truthfulness of the official narratives about Hubbard.

Dianetics was announced as a “science”; “Scientology” clearly carries that very word. Even before engaging with the specific teachings concerning the E‐meter, we should remark that “technology” (tech) is a pivotal word in Hubbard's/Scientology parlance, an overarching term designating Hubbard's “discoveries” and teaching, the lexicon in which they are explained and their application. Hence, “technology” virtually means “Scientology's doctrine.” Hubbard was particularly insistent on the intact (“standard”) preservation of the “tech.” He expressed it clearly in a 1965 policy letter entitled “Keep Scientology Working,” a document still used as an introduction to auditor training courses, and displayed in the rooms of Scientology organizations: (1) Having the correct technology; (2) Knowing the technology; (3) Knowing it is correct; (4) Teaching correctly the correct technology; (5) Applying the technology; (6) Seeing that the technology is correctly applied; (7) Hammering out of existence incorrect technology; (8) Knocking out incorrect applications; (9) Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology; (10) Closing the door on incorrect application (Hubbard ; for a detailed discussion see Westbrook , 147–49).

The scholar Donald Westbrook suggests that Miscavige's Religious Technology Center, whose declared goal is to preserve the pure application of Hubbard's technologies, is analogous to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Westbrook , n. 115).

SALIENT HISTORICAL FACTS

Scientology: A History of Man (Hubbard [] 2007), Hubbard's exploration of the thetans’ “whole track” (“This is a cold‐blooded and factual account of your last 76 trillion years,” [3]) offers this paragraph on the device:

The search of this track began some years ago and was conducted sporadically on many preclears. Various instruments such as electroencephalograph and the police lie detector were used to further this search, but these were inadequate and limited for this search. Finally, Volney Mathison applied his electronic genius to the problem and invented the Electropsychometer. This instrument had a range and ability greatly in excess of anything before known. … By adding up and checking probabilities on scores of persons, the character, extent and content of the whole track were mapped. (Hubbard [] 2007, 6)

This paragraph contains a rare expression of modesty by Hubbard; it also hints at the origin of the E‐meter with some accuracy. The basic idea behind the E‐meter was not completely new, nor was Hubbard the first inventor. Electric devices were used for psychological investigations long before Hubbard, for instance, by Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961). Volney G. Mathison (1897–1965) was a chiropractor and writer. He invented a “Mathison Psychometer” based on the technology of the Wheatstone bridge (a circuit that measures electrical resistance, invented as early as 1833 by the British scientist Samuel Hunter Christie, but named after Sir Charles Wheatstone who popularized it a decade later). Mathison was actually influenced by Hubbard's lectures (it is doubtful that Hubbard had any part in its design) and the device was used (although discontinuously) in Dianetics practice as early as 1951. When Mathison refused to turn over the patent rights (whose application dated back to 1951) to Hubbard, Hubbard initially discarded the device claiming that it depersonalized the sessions (Corydon and Hubbard , 313). However, in May 1955 Hubbard came up with a new version (Hubbard ) and from that moment the device would play an essential role in Dianetics/Scientology. It was later (1966) patented in Hubbard's name. Mathison kept patenting, experimenting with, and theorizing about his own versions (Mathison ). Notably, the E‐meters were not patented by Hubbard (and, in the case of later models, by other Scientologists) by fully referencing their interpretation but rather by using a “neutral” definition, such as “device for measuring and indicating changes in resistance of a living body.”

The E‐meter ran into legal trouble in the early 1950s with consequences stretching to the early 1970s, which left a mark on E‐meter–related teachings and official statements. In 1951, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners accused the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation Inc. of teaching medical practices without a license. In 1958, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confiscated and destroyed 21,000 Dianazene tablets, a vitamin supplement that according to Hubbard's claims protected against radiation. In 1963, the Founding Church of Scientology in Washington, DC was raided by U.S. marshals acting on an FDA warrant; hundreds of E‐meters, among other materials, were confiscated and the FDA accused Scientology of falsely claiming that the device had therapeutic properties, both for physical and mental illnesses. The first trial, in 1967, ended with an unfavorable verdict for Scientology: the judge ordered that the confiscated materials be destroyed.

In 1969, the Court of Appeal accepted the religious nature of Scientology and conceded that the E‐meter could be used in “bona fide religious counselling.” In other words, while acknowledging that the device was part and parcel of religious beliefs and practices, its usage was not questioned—as long as it was maintained in that context. According to the verdict, Scientologists “conceded that the E‐meter is of no use in the diagnosis or treatment of disease as such, and have argued that it was never put forward as having such use.” The FDA appealed the decision, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined the request. Finally, District Court Judge Gerhard Alden Gesell (1910–1993), while denying any medical validity to the device (and recognizing that it had been represented as a medical device in the past), ordered the property to be returned to the Church and allowed its use in religious counselling. From that time on E‐meters had to be labelled with a clear disclaimer: “The E‐Meter is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone.” However, Scientology adopted a reformulated version: “The Hubbard Electrometer is a religious artifact. By itself, this meter does nothing. It is for religious use by students and Ministers of the church in Confessionals and pastoral counseling only.” Besides, until the release of the Mark V version, the warning was not placed on the device in the “prominent, clearly visible” way ordered by the court (Wallis , 190–92, 197; Urban , 62–63).

THE E‐METER IN HUBBARD'S HANDBOOKS

I emphasize once more that the Scientology library (also comprising Hubbard's 3,000 or more taped lectures) is immense. In order to produce an exhaustive study of the E‐meter, one should examine all available texts. I have chosen to principally analyze and quote just four books. The rationale of my selection is twofold: all are downloadable online and all specifically focus on the E‐meter, which forms part of their titles.

In E‐Meter Essentials (Hubbard [] 1988), one of the most emphasized concepts is the device's irreplaceability: “There is no known way to clear anyone without using a meter” (3); “There is no guarantee that scrap or nonstandard meter will behave properly” (4). It is stressed that the device requires constant practice: “The only way known to learn to use an E‐Meter is use one, handle one, practice with one. Skill in meter use depends upon familiarizing oneself with the actual meter” (5); similarly, on the following page it is stated: “Get familiar with the meter by holding it, watching it, turning it on and off. Touch it. Reach and withdraw from it. Play catch with it. Don't just read books about it” (6). The E‐meter is described as infallible: “The person who says the meter is not a precision instrument is either unfamiliar with one or has something to hide. The auditor's questions can be off. The meter never is” (5). Another characteristic is that it “knows” more than those who use it: “The meter registers before the preclear becomes conscious of the datum. It is therefore a pre‐conscious meter” (6). “The meter ‘knows’ more about the preclear than the preclear. It is reading created masses he is withholding himself from. The preclear won't confront all he is creating. Hence the omniscience of the meter” (15).

The Book of E‐Meter Drills (Hubbard [] 1997) collects several Hubbard texts. Similar to the earliest book, it dwells on the possible behavior of the needle and its interpretations. Eighteen motions are listed: Stuck, Null, Fall, Change of Characteristic, Rise, Theta Bop, Rock Slam (“A wild, irregular crashing of the needle back and forth. Indicates an evil intention”), Free Needle (“A floating needle. Nice regular left and right movement. Indicates a key out.”), Stage Four, Rocket Read, Dirty Needle, Clean Needle, Tick, Speeded Rise, Speeded Fall, Slowed Rise, Slowed Fall, Stop (19).

The book Introducing the E‐Meter (Hubbard [] 1988) is a compilation of writings under Hubbard's supervision. It opens with a statement betraying the legal troubles the device had been through: “THE E‐METER IS NOT INTENDED OR EFFECTIVE FOR THE DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT OR PREVENTION OF ANY DISEASE” (copyright page). The device is described in physical terms: “This is a Hubbard Electrometer called an E‐Meter for short. Technically it is a specially developed ‘Wheatstone Bridge’ well known to electrically minded people as a device to measure the amount of resistance to a flow of electricity” (1). However this kind of physical description is integrated with statements such as “The resistance of a dead female body is 5,000 ohms and of a dead male body, 12,500 ohms” (3). The device is “humanized”: “We in Scientology have come to accept the fact that the E‐Meter ‘talks’ to us” (5). Besides the E‐meter's accuracy, much emphasis is placed on Hubbard's efforts to create it: “We rarely give much thought to the hours and hours of work and research put in by L. Ron Hubbard, resulting in the perfect instrument—the Mark V—and an exact exposition of what the various readings and changes mean” (6).

Understanding the E‐Meter (Hubbard [] 1989) is also a compilation. One of the opening statements again makes it clear that the device is a religious artifact and is not meant for medical use:

By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and Pastoral Counselling. The Electrometer is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily function of anyone and is for religious use by students and Ministers of the Church of Scientology only. (2)

Hubbard makes bold claims such as the following:

Einstein is reported to have said that all an observer should be permitted to do is to read a meter and report the message of the meter. This is true enough. But the observer of a human mind can read it with a meter only if the meter is an accurate and constant meter, and only if he knows what questions to ask. The invention of the Hubbard Electrometer indubitably ranks as another Scientology “first.” For here we have the first truly accurate and constant meter ever employed in the field of the mind. If the truth be known, the E‐Meter utterly dwarfs such inventions as that of the microscope. (Hubbard [1982a]1989, 6)

It is stressed that the device has been perfected over time: “The first E‐Meter was built in 1950 and there have been many refinements made over the years to improve its workability and accuracy. However, the basic principle of the operation of the meter has not changed” (6). Once again its working is referred to basic physical notions: “The E‐Meter is an instrument which measures emotional reaction by tiny electrical impulses generated by thought” (6). The itself of thetan is expressed in a mixture of Hubbard's original vocabulary and physical terms: “In the physical universe, the only true static is the thetan. The thetan has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time” (13). There are sentences such as “Resistance can be measured very exactly, and the amount of resistance to an electrical flow is measured in what is called ohms” (46). These however, are blended with statements such as “The required pressure or voltage is determined by the amount of mental mass or resistance present in the preclear” (51). Claims are made that sound like generalizations of empirical/experimental observations; for instance, “Thus, when the preclear thinks a thought, looks at a picture, reexperiences an Incident or shifts some part of the bank, he is using electrical energy to do so, and an electrical disturbance occurs within the electrical field surrounding, or within the preclear's body” (56). It is stated that the use of the device, or E‐metering, “is a science and an art. A thorough understanding of the E‐Meter [instructional] films, the above texts and familiarity with the E‐Meter through E‐Meter drills will make you a master of this precision instrument” (60).

In addition, we can observe that Hubbard did compare the E‐meter to a lie detector used by the police at least once:

The difference between this machine and a police department machine is elementary: a police department machine is just more of it. A police department machine measures respiration, blood pressure, […and] electronic impulse. They measure maybe as many as four or five factors. The point is, this machine measures solely the electrical resistance of the body. (Hubbard )

At other times, Hubbard explicitly distinguished the E‐meter from a lie detector and downplayed the relevance of personal information yielded during auditing (i.e., the goal was getting rid of spiritual impediments, not assessing the moral relevance of what the preclears had actually done); however, he did establish specific procedures called “security checks” that, although justified in the general theological picture as merely aimed at the improvement of the preclears, could be—and according to ex‐Scientologists actually were—used in order to obtain sensitive information liable to be used against the audited subjects: the procedure, in fact, includes questions about the preclears’ sexual behavior, crime records, and possible negative thoughts against the founder (Westbrook , 118, 132–34). Ex‐Scientologists admit to the fact that they did perceive/regard the E‐meter as an infallible lie detector; it is reported that staff at Saint Hill (Hubbard's English mansion and central Scientology headquarters over the years 1959–1967) refused to undergo E‐meter–based security checks out of fear of what could be discovered about their private lives (Miller , 239). Hubbard also claimed he was using the device in his experiments concerning plants’ feelings at Saint Hill and famous pictures portray him observing a tomato connected to an E‐meter by way of crocodile clips and cables (Ortega ).

Currently, the E‐meter is also used to administer “stress tests” offered to passers‐by at stands on the street in attempts at recruiting new members. Furthermore, to anybody who is interested, Scientology members are eager to administer a demonstration known as a “pinch test”: one gets pinched (usually on the arm) and invited to take up the cans and to think about the “negative memory” to see how the instrument reacts.

THE E‐METER IN CRITICAL LITERATURE

Articles and books that negatively criticize Scientology abound. They are written, for instance, by disgruntled ex‐members or by journalists and activists concerned with human rights violations, with pseudoscience, or with the solidity of Scientology's claims of religious status, especially as far as Scientology's credibility and the fiscal policies applied to it are concerned. Academics have also taken critical stands in scholarly articles. When Hubbard's behavior and teachings, or Scientology's history are examined, the evidence clearly shows a contempt for human rights, as well as blatant doctrinal inconsistencies; hence objective, historical reconstruction, and negative criticism (or what is considered such by Scientologists) may overlap. Therefore, a binary distinction between critical and scholarly literature is somewhat simplistic. In this section, we consider texts concerning the E‐meter that are explicitly aimed at discrediting Hubbard's teaching and official Scientology claims about it.

A web site that aggregates contributions that level various kinds of criticism at Scientology is David S. Touretzky's. A computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Touretzky, who is principally but not exclusively concerned with the violations of human rights within the movement, has been publicly criticizing Scientology since the 1990s. A whole page of his site is dedicated to links concerning the E‐meter, aggregating not only various critical/polemical texts, but also Scientology literature on the device, as well as parodic pieces.

Here we can identify at least ten different lines of argument in which the E‐meter is criticized. I list them with the indication of at least one piece or article that I could locate on Touretzky's page. Sometimes such lines merge, or one piece better exemplifies the criticism than another. I shall only hint at core arguments without, for the moment, examining or discussing them any further.

(1) Supposedly “embarrassing” historical facts are pointed out about the E‐meter; for instance, that Hubbard did not really invent it, that it was preceded by similar devices, or the history of its juridical troubles (Corydon and Hubbard , 332–32). (2) It is pointed out that, although the E‐meter definitely detects a resistance, such resistance can hardly be identified with that created by the “mass” of “thoughts”; in other words that the discourse surrounding the E‐meter is pseudoscientific (Cooper ; Jacobsen ). (3) It is stated that repeated exposure to its current proves physically harmful (Lerma ). (4) It is stated that an audited subject can manipulate the needle's behavior and thus deceive the auditor, for instance by grabbing the electrodes harder and therefore obtaining a desired motion. (5) It is pointed out that the E‐meter's very mechanism and interpretation are devised in such a way that it always yields an interpretation advantageous to the auditor. (6) It is observed that the resistance of the electric flow is heavily influenced by factors such as the strength with which the cans are held, the extension of skin in contact with them, sweat's salinity, so on (Schafmeister n.d.). (7) It is pointed out that Hubbard was not consistent in his descriptions of the workings and aim of the E‐meter (Ortega ). (8) It is pointed out that during auditing, sensitive information is obtained that can be used to blackmail the audited person. (9) It is pointed out that the E‐meter can underperform or malfunction and some movements of the needle can simply be random. (10) It is stated that the E‐meter is not worth the price (e.g., 5,000–6,000.00 USD for a Mark VIII) with which is it marketed, actually compelling auditors into owning two units since one may break down (Jacobsen ; Ortega ).

THE E‐METER IN SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS

Roy Wallis wrote the first all‐encompassing scholarly monograph about Scientology, considered from a sociological angle (Wallis ). The E‐meter is touched upon in several passages. Wallis defines it as “a technological aid which has been developed to assist the process of auditing,” specifying that it is “a form of skin galvanometer operating on the principle of a Wheatstone bridge which measures resistance to a current passing between two terminals”; Wallis does point out that the needle's movements can be caused by a variety of factors such as sweat, skin surface area touching the terminals, and pressure, but also states that Scientologists are convinced that they can detect, through it, changes in the state of the thetan, and that the device, whose behavior and reading is described with a very complex terminology, is believed to be infallible (Wallis , 116). In Wallis's interpretation, the usage of the E‐meter bestows on meditative exercises “a scientific garb and provides an aura of technological precision and contemporaneity” (Wallis , 122). Another relevant function of the E‐meter is, according to Wallis, the standardization of the auditing procedure that becomes semi‐skilled, rendering the individual practitioner's charisma irrelevant (Wallis , 123).

In her extensive monograph on Scientology, Harriet Whitehead (Whitehead ) dedicates considerable space to the technique of auditing. She defines the E‐meter a “skin galvanometer” (Whitehead , 142) and reports, by referring to scientific articles, both that experiments have shown that “the rise and fall of skin resistance [detected by such devices] seems to follow—instantaneously—changes in alertness, or, more generally, changes in central nervous system arousal,” yet she immediately specifies that galvanic skin response has a “discernible but nonspecific correlation with one's subjective state” (Whitehead , 143). After some pages in which the E‐meter is presented according to Scientology's normative version, Whitehead raises the doubt “whether any galvanic skin response is, in fact, correlated with preconscious ideas” and whether audited subjects might be “rationalizing” or “fabricating” (Whitehead , 156).

Mary Farrell Bednarowski addressed Scientology in a monograph dedicated to various U.S.‐based NRMs (Bednarowski ). While briefly touching upon the E‐meter, she simply defines it as a “device” used in the auditing process and reports the standard statement according to which “in itself it does nothing” (Bednarowski , 62).

While discussing the topic of the E‐meter, Hugh Urban specifies in his monograph that its “primary component” is a Wheatstone bridge (Urban , 49). Urban is more interested in reconstructing the device's history (together with the role attributed to it by Hubbard) and does not engage in any extensive interpretation of it.

INTERPRETING THE E‐METER

We have so far collected a considerable number of observations about the E‐meter made by Hubbard/Scientologists and non‐Scientologists alike. In what follows, I will mainly focus on five main points: (1) the pseudoscientific character of the language in which the E‐meter is conceptualized; (2) the usage of the terms “religious” as well as properly physical terminology in the interaction with authorities outside Scientology when making statements about the E‐meter; (3) the symbolic function of technology as it is associated with the E‐meter; (4) the tension infallibility‐innovation in E‐meter related teachings; (5) and the symbolic overlap of the E‐meter with Hubbard.

Clearly, if one assumes the viewpoint of modern physics (defined as the experimental study of the material world according to mathematical models), what is written about the E‐meter in Scientology literature can be deemed sheer pseudoscience and the device can be seen as an example of pseudotechnology, or paratechnology at best. The very existence of the engram, let alone its detection by means of resistance to an electric flow through its “mass,” has never been experimentally verified. What has been verified is that the electric flow produced by the E‐meter is influenced by known physical factors, so that the needle's motions prove unreliable or easily manipulable; even if we benignly accept the hypothesis that something like the engram might exist, all versions of the E‐meter, no matter how up‐to‐date, are influenced by factors that fatally impair any detection of engrams themselves. The E‐meter does not perform with the precision and infallibility claimed by Hubbard.

Hubbard easily constructs pseudoscientific texts. He weaves together terms that do have a definition in established physics and others that have a definition only in his own parlance. The exact relationship between the former and the latter is often blurred or left unexplained. This is customary in science fiction: one can think of the “technobabble” that peppers Star Trek episodes. In some cases, Hubbard makes palpably false statements; for instance, when he associates a specific value in ohms to male and female bodies. In other cases, he mixes proper and idiosyncratic terms up to the point that drawing a line between physically accurate descriptions and Hubbardian inventions becomes impossible (and overall the result is a scientifically implausible text). Hence, we cannot simply define the E‐meter as a galvanometer or a Wheatstone bridge and go on to describe Hubbard's account of its use in Scientology; one should be very clear in distinguishing what the E‐meter does in acceptable scientific terms, what it does in Hubbard's terms, and when Hubbard uses scientific terms in his own unjustified and unscientific way.

I have reconstructed various attempts at “debunking” the E‐meter. Assessing Scientology teachings about the E‐meter as pseudoscientific means constructing an etic (external) discourse, whereas what is believed in Scientology is emic (internal) matter. Most likely, the two competing conceptualizations hardly reach any real collision or even friction. Furthermore, whether the invention and diffusion of the E‐meter from the very beginning was sheer, intentional, and cynical quackery is a question whose answer cannot be taken for granted and I will not address it here. I have decided from the beginning to limit my examination to written teachings and statements and to avoid guesswork. Even so, I can justifiably observe that Hubbard (as well as Scientologistsn by patenting the E‐meter and/or producing official Scientology texts) displayed a certain astuteness in the use of language while dealing with extra‐Scientology authorities—either to gain external recognition, or when Scientology's teachings were under attack. By “astuteness” I mean an acute awareness both of what is accepted, outside Scientology parlance, as scientific, as well as the capacity to avoid and/or deflect criticism while using a language shared both by Scientology and its critics.

In other words, Hubbard and Scientologists after him were able to drop both the religious aspects and the pseudo/paraphysical language of “engrams” in some contexts when this proved to be a useful move. The various E‐meters were patented (hence acquiring a legitimation from non‐Scientology authorities that could be capitalized on) by using essential descriptions that did not refer to their religious interpretation/function formulated in Hubbard's parlance. To this we can add that the adoption of the terms “religion” and “religious” proved advantageous when the E‐meter ran the risk of a wholesale ban. The religious connotation was (and still is) useful in the negotiation and defense of a device that was originally presented with a purely therapeutic function, be this presentation sincere or not. Freedom of belief is protected by the Constitution of the United States and, more generally, the religious characterization invites respect and/or deflects scientific scrutiny. This holds for the E‐meter as well as for Scientology teachings as a whole.

The aforementioned disrespect toward the legal verdict concerning the E‐meter has a similar flavor. Not only was the label not placed where ordered, but the very choice of the diction “by itself, this device does nothing” carried a Machiavellian undertone given that the phrasing is utterly devoid of meaning. Such a platitude holds for each and every machine. If the presiding judge's goal was to warn potential users about the E‐meter's medical ineffectiveness and prevent Scientologists from its pseudomedical usage, the phrasing chosen definitely did not respect his intentions.

Other avenues of enquiry beg examination and interpretation. As Wallis observed, the E‐meter carries a “scientific” or “technological aura”; this mystique adds to the attraction of potential members or the Scientologists’ appreciation of the movement's teachings. This is suggested both by slogans such as the one employed in the 2014 Super Bowl commercial and by statements made by ex‐Scientologists (“I was impressed by Hubbard's insistence that his ‘Dianetics’ was not dependent on faith but was completely scientific”: Atack , 9). Hence, the E‐meter seems to benefit from a kind of “appeal” that technological objects, be they demonstrably functional ones or not, can bear (and do in fact often bear). This, however, is not “radiated” by technology per se; it is rather the result of a marketing strategy—the adoption of a discourse that associates infallibility and precision to the freshness of an object (the update of a device can enhance its efficacy, but not everything that is “refreshed” is necessarily more efficient), or to the very fact that an object seems/is technological. In this sense, the appeal of the E‐meter seems to rely on a philosophically naïve conception of technology, but possibly an effective one, marketing‐wise.

The E‐meter's design and its elements have been regularly renewed over time. Thus, the very claim of infallibility had to be reconciled with the idea of freshness and of enhanced accuracy connected to the invention of new versions of the E‐meter. This is a constant conceptual tension or oscillation within Scientology's teachings about the E‐meter. However, it is not different from the tension experienced within religions in which a certain doctrine has to be presented as perfect and immutable while actually being adjusted to the challenges of a particular time. (It should be added that the E‐meter's sales contribute to the movement's profits. This is another practical factor that encourages Scientology authorities to reshape or refresh the discourse about it, as well as the very object.)

This leads to another conceptual aspect: the overlap between the device, Scientology teaching (or “tech”), and Scientology's founder. It is reported that Hubbard underwent auditing systematically, solo or with an auditor, keeping detailed records for years (Miller , 250; Corydon and Hubbard , 372). The device seemingly fascinated Hubbard as an effective instrument and became more and more significant in auditing, which is the central practice of all Scientology. He was also very insistent on keeping the “tech” “standard”: this held particularly for the instructions concerning the E‐meter. This gives the impression that the E‐meter and teachings related to it became the tech par excellence, but also that it became a symbol of the founder himself to be cherished, used on a constant basis, and faithfully preserved; Hubbard's identity was conflated in an object, by virtue of the founder's very teachings and of the way in which the teaching and the device were conceptualized after his death. In fact, it has been argued that Hubbard's very presence is channeled through the device (Christensen , 427 n. 53). In other words, the E‐meter and its use seemingly extend in time and space the infallibility, the reliability, and the originality associated by Scientologists with Hubbard himself as the initiator and first teacher of auditing and the only individual fully versed in its use. (Interestingly, the official name is actually the “Hubbard Electropsychometer”). If this aspect is taken into account, we face two different interpretations that can actually be combined: (1) the E‐meter bestows on the whole practice of auditing (and hence on Scientology) an aura of precision and reliability (through a specific, pseudoscientific and rhetorical discourse); and (2) it inherits such aura from Hubbard's charisma that it extends over time and space beyond his death.

In sum, the teachings concerning the E‐meter seem to contain a rather unoriginal and naïve sacralization of technology as infallible, objective, and intrinsically “modern” (and hence “good”) that surrounds each and every technological device that furnishes our world as soon as it is marketed. Such sacralization is intertwined with the sacralization of the founder and faces challenges analogous to other religious discourses. Scientology in general, as well as E‐meter–related teachings in particular, cannot be simply and entirely reduced to pseudoscience/pseudotechnology or described as the result (or the instrument) of a “scientification of religion” or of a “sacralization of science,” although all these elements seem present. What we discover is rather a complex, multilevel conceptual interplay. Finally, these theoretical observations should be complemented or contrasted with ethnographic ones. I hope that these pages will inspire other experts to carry out further work in the directions indicated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply grateful to Zygon’s anonymous reviewers, as well as to Donald Westbrook, Bernard Doherty, David Touretzky, and Jon Atack.

NOTES