EAT
Unfortunately, the causes of various mental health conditions are still too broadly attributed to parents. Martin Grabe, chief physician at a diaconal psychiatric facility, explained that he generally does not treat "problems with God" as such. Instead, the assumption is typically that the patient has "deeply internalized problematic experiences with their parents" (Source: idea Spektrum, 47/2011). Yet, this perspective is too limited—indeed, it is simply incorrect. Even Sigmund Freud excluded fundamentalist religion—and the harm it causes—from the analytical setting. This raises the question: Have actual parents ever threatened their children with being burned in hell for eternity? The "Holy Scripture" does exactly that.
In EAT (Ex-Affirmation Therapy), the therapist therefore engages in a targeted discussion with the client about their faith. The working hypothesis here is that a "100 percent atheist" hardly exists. Almost everyone in the Western world has heard of God, Jesus, the cross, and our alleged culpability in his death by torture. Terms like "heaven" and "hell" exist in every language worldwide. Equally well-known is the absolute claim made by the biblical Jesus—that only the Christian faith offers protection from damnation. Statements such as "No one comes to the Father except through me" were often attributed to the biblical Jesus—sometimes for missionary purposes, but more frequently for concrete economic reasons. As a psychological counterweight to communion and confirmation, EAT employs a process known as "de-confirmation" (Ausfirmung). This must be more potent and more decisive than the influence of the church’s untruths regarding a personal God. EAT operates on the premise that the belief in hell is deeply anchored in the client’s collective unconscious—an assumption upon which C. G. Jung would likely have wagered 100 to 1. A detailed analysis of exactly when and where the religious trauma occurred is generally unnecessary in EAT, though it can be addressed alongside the therapy if needed. There are also pragmatic reasons for this: in any case, events that took place before the age of three or four cannot be recalled through classical analysis.
Freud himself wrote that it could be advantageous and time-saving for an analyst to voice a suspected—or "guessed"—cause for a patient’s illness. Such conjectures often prove accurate, particularly when the analysis triggers intense resistance. In my own case, the resistance from the psychiatric establishment has been quite remarkable—extending even to physical assault.
The EAT approach differs fundamentally from that of classical psychoanalysis. With a bit of luck—though often only after years—traditional analysis may uncover the triggering trauma, the supposed "sin." In most cases, however, this transgression turns out to be so trivial that the notion of an afterlife punishment seems entirely implausible. For instance, a young child might have cuddled with a governess or their mother, only to perceive the act as a sin—or even as incest. While a successful analysis might rehabilitate the patient and facilitate their recovery—allowing them, as it were, to pass back through the eye of the needle—the "sin" often remains elusive, having been repressed so deeply that it cannot be brought to light even through free association. If the alleged transgression occurred in early childhood, it would not be stored in the autobiographical memory at all; thus, any "sin" supposedly "uncovered" from this period is almost invariably an event suggested by the analyst.
EAT, by contrast, directly dismantles the very concepts of punishment and eternal damnation, rather than focusing primarily on the discovery of a "sin." After all, if Jesus were the ruler of a hellish torture chamber, he would be nothing more than an extreme, amplified version of an earthly despot. The religious author Hans-Werner Deppe writes—addressing children who are already fearful—that Jesus rages in his hell even more viciously than "Hitler." This is not only tasteless and cruel, but also constitutes blasphemy—even if the public prosecutor’s office, when brought into the matter, took a different view.
The EAT (Evangelical Analysis Team/Group) exposes the crimes committed by the churches against children—and, by extension, against those who have fallen ill—in minute detail. The patient suddenly realizes that he was among those children who were psychologically unable to cope when threatened with eternal hell—in violation of Section 241 of the German Criminal Code (threats) and Section 19 (which establishes that children cannot be held criminally liable)—or when told they were to blame for the death of Jesus on the cross. He is not the perpetrator, but the victim; this is precisely what he must recognize and come to understand. In his case, even the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights were disregarded by members of the clergy.
The EAT therapist provides the client with an objective account of the institution of the Church: priests, pastors, and—all too often—religious education teachers wield power through the concept of "grace." This "grace" is supposedly what will determine, on the Day of Judgment, whether a person is consigned to "eternal damnation." The Protestant Church, the Bible, and various hymnals leave no doubt that children who fail to repent will be tortured by fire. In hymn 234 ("As surely as I live, says your God"), the lyrics—purportedly spoken by God Himself—tell children in the 21st century that "your soul and body must burn there." Although there are plans to remove this hymn, it continues to threaten children with torture to this day. Within the framework of EAT, the "law" is explained to the patient in this context. A military chaplain once hit the nail on the head: the threat of torture is, in itself, an act of torture.
In this regard, Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which prohibits torture, the death penalty, and life imprisonment) is relevant:
States Parties shall ensure that no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Furthermore, Section 7 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law (VStGB) stipulates that the torture of individuals is punishable by a prison sentence of no less than five years. At the heart of EAT lies this fundamental assertion: neither God nor Jesus are equivalent to despots or criminals. They do not correspond to the image of them that the churches often project today. This is the core tenet of the therapy.
For the modern mind, the idea that Jesus would continue in hell exactly where Hitler was forced to stop in 1945 is simply unbearable. Linking a supposedly God-ordained hell to Auschwitz is profoundly repulsive. Yet, precisely here lies a bisociative act—a verbal fulguration—that an experienced therapist can put to use. Paradoxically, the real historical horror of Auschwitz helps, in this context, to establish a firm psychiatric footing. In the spirit of Theodor W. Adorno, the principle holds: never again torture, never again concentration camps. For mental health, this implies, by logical extension: never again the fear of an eternal concentration camp.
Learning EAT (Evocative-Affective Therapy) strictly requires continuous therapeutic supervision, as experience has shown that it can rapidly induce feelings of guilt and notions of having committed a sin. Even after the formal therapeutic work has concluded, close follow-up care remains essential to monitor for the potential development of "Sacco syndrome." Given the significant risk of suggestive influence, both therapists and patients should, for the time being, refrain from visiting churches or other places of worship, as well as from engaging in prayer. In this context, prayer functions as an act of autosuggestion—a practice that, in any case, fails to do justice to the true nature of the Divine. Similarly, listening to church music—especially organ music—should be avoided due to its unpredictable suggestive effects (cf. the chapter on "Hypnosis").
Regarding prayer and meditation, Josef Rudin observes in his work Psychotherapy and Religion: "Is what a person is doing here not merely an endless conversation with oneself? [...] Is prayer, at its core, not simply the projection of one's own subjective mental images—along with the associated ideas and feelings—onto a purely imagined [...] being?" This brings to mind the theological axiom: "No one has ever seen God." Consequently, the worship of a petty, vengeful "God of the Law" almost inevitably manifests as inner tension and a lack of freedom; it bears clear hallmarks of an anxiety or obsessive-compulsive neurosis. True prayer, by contrast, finds its expression in everyday life—provided that life is characterized by a constant, mindful attention to the needs of one's fellow human beings. As part of the EAT, a specific account is provided of the German federal laws that are violated by religious institutions—particularly through the dogma of damnation:
1. Threatening with torture, pursuant to Section 241 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) in conjunction with Article 1 of the Basic Law (GG) (human dignity)
2. Mistreatment of persons under one’s care or custody, pursuant to Section 225 of the German Criminal Code (StGB)
3. Child abuse, as defined under the Guidelines for Criminal Proceedings and Administrative Fine Proceedings (RiStBV, No. 235)
Consequently, the visual or dogmatic depiction of Jesus torturing a human being constitutes the following offenses or legal violations:
Depiction of violence, pursuant to Section 131 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), as well as a violation of the Protection of Young Persons Act (JuSchG)
Disturbance of the practice of religion, pursuant to Section 167 of the German Criminal Code (StGB)
Violation of the right of personal care and custody (parental/guardianship responsibility), pursuant to Section 1631 of the German Civil Code (BGB)
The affected individual is told that the legislature had a specific purpose—an underlying intent—when drafting the laws. Dr. Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, a professor of criminal law in Bochum, states: "The practice of our religion does not grant us the right to infringe upon the rights of others in the slightest, nor does it exempt us from any legal obligation." The boundaries established by our laws, the legal scholar notes, do not shift "by even a single millimeter" when it comes to the practice of religion. Within the Evangelical Church (EAT), for instance, there is discussion regarding the recently introduced practice of offering Holy Communion to children in daycare, starting as early as age three or four. The liturgy for Communion, along with numerous hymns, ascribes to these very young children a role as "co-perpetrators" in the crucifixion of Jesus. This specific terminology comes directly from Pastor Traugott Giesen (Keitum). From a legal standpoint, "co-perpetration"—as defined under Section 25 of the German Criminal Code (StGB)—is a form of criminal liability. A look at the Protestant hymnal reveals the potential psychological impact this has on children. In hymn no. 88, the youngest children sing: "Jesus... help me not to torment You anew with my sin." In this instance, church practice reaches a low point in terms of both pedagogy and taste. Equally damaging is the hymn "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" (O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden): "...what You, O Lord, endured is entirely my burden; I am the one who caused what You have borne."
Such texts can impose a heavy emotional burden. They suggest to children that they are responsible for a horrific murder. Since children at this age typically interpret what they are taught in a literal and concrete sense, this accusation carries significant weight. While Section 19 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) establishes that children under the age of 14 lack criminal responsibility, the Church imposes upon them a moral and existential "sin"—disregarding the fact that churches, as public-law corporations, are bound by the values of our legal system. Following this same logic, individuals of any age suffering from severe mental illness would also be deemed "unfit" to receive Communion, given that secular law—under Section 20 of the Criminal Code (which addresses incapacity for guilt due to mental disorder)—affords them protection. It runs counter to the human dignity enshrined in the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) to present children with an angry, punitive God whom they must worship out of fear. The biblical story of Abraham is also discussed in therapy with patients. Abraham obeyed "God"—yet this obedience was ultimately rooted in a fear of sin and divine retribution. Fortunately, an angel intervened at the last moment. After all, who would kill their own child like a sheep, without any necessity? Nevertheless, Abraham is still regarded today as the quintessential example of an obedient believer.
No such angel appeared to the murderer Illigen. "I had to kill my father," stated Illigen, who completed his doctoral studies under Peter Sloterdijk. He felt guilty despite being innocent; in reality, he was a victim of a religion that was brutal to the point of excess. According to the article, his neurotransmitter levels were so elevated that they caused "malfunctions in the brain’s perceptual center." Sloterdijk, much like Cioran and Baudrillard, advocates for a catastrophic version of postmodernism—a perspective that, in religious terms, roughly corresponds to the Apocalypse.
Such a doctrine of the Apocalypse is not without consequences: in 2010, all the churches in Würzburg were dominated by this vision of the end times, which was presented to local children as an inevitable future. Following an unsuccessful formal warning, I filed a complaint against St. Stephen’s Church in the spring of 2010. I had discovered a child weeping in the third row, gripped by an acute fear of burning in the Apocalypse. My subsequent request to the Lower Saxony Medical Association to put a stop to these exhibitions was rejected on the grounds that they lacked "jurisdiction." The price for this is evident in the exceptionally high rate of illness among children in Würzburg ever since: one in five children there suffers from the anxiety-based disorder known as ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).
Within the framework of EAT (Existential-Analytical Therapy), the therapist addresses the core of the collective unconscious. Specific questions are posed regarding fears of suffering that transcends human limits—whether on Earth or in an imagined hell. While Freud once discouraged discussing such themes, EAT teaches our psychiatrists how to engage in this dialogue once again. In the process, the therapist carefully observes how the client responds to these targeted prompts. He calibrates the intensity of his explanations according to the patient’s capacity to absorb and process the information. For EAT (Anxiety-Elimination Therapy), an initial schedule of four one-hour sessions should be planned, potentially involving the family at times. Sessions should be spaced one to two weeks apart. Informational material is provided to the patient. The EAT therapist guides those affected toward a different—a healthy and, therefore, better—"religion." For the reasons outlined, general practitioners and pediatricians are currently perhaps better suited for this role than our psychiatrists, who are themselves often burdened by specific anxieties.
Topic: Resistance in EAT
Topic: Resistance in EAT
Naturally, resistance also arises within EAT (Existential-Analytical Therapy). Since this approach explicitly engages in the critique of religion and the concept of God, it frequently encounters rejection at an unconscious level. Very often, this manifests as a repressed belief in an afterlife—specifically, a belief in hell or damnation. A striking example: a patient vehemently denied believing in hell or seeing any connection between his depression and such fears. Yet, in the previous therapy session, he had stated with full conviction that Hitler would "surely go to hell."
Within EAT—much like the systemic dynamics found in a pathological psychiatric landscape—the most potent form of analytical resistance must be overcome: so-called "ego-syntonic" defense. Totalitarian systems employ the threat of torture and terror to instill precisely this type of defense within a population. In doing so, they cement their ideologies and religious dogmas, thereby securing their own hold on power—a mechanism that can also be observed historically within the two major Christian churches.
Ego-syntonic defense compels individuals to internalize the dogmas prescribed by the establishment, adopting them as their own deepest convictions. Tragically, this can even lead to criminal acts, as such defenses block essential cognitive functions—logic and the capacity for critical thought—effectively functioning like brainwashing. An extreme example is Anders Breivik, who imagined himself a "crusader for God" and—following a misguided interpretation of dogma—believed himself exempt from purgatory or hell. This psychological mechanism cost 77 Norwegians their lives.
How does one deal with such resistance? One simply continues the dialogue. Nothing is forced upon the client. The assumption is that the rational thoughts regarding religion expressed by the therapist will eventually take root—both in the conscious and the unconscious mind. The therapist presents only verifiable facts—albeit stark ones. The truth and reason must be brought to the table. In the case of "atheists," the Kierkegaard Test (see entry) can be employed to clarify whether an illness rooted in religion might be present.
Lay Psychoanalysis and Lay EAT
Sigmund Freud once advocated for "lay psychoanalysis," arguing that the field was far too valuable to be left exclusively to physicians and clergy. Today, with the necessary caution, any layperson can—through targeted dialogue within the framework of EAT (Explorative-Analytical Talk)—help others correct destructive or erroneous religious notions. Concepts such as the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the wrath of God, and the belief in the devil and hell can thus be subjected to rational scrutiny and shown to be absurd.
Furthermore, parents whose children attend religious instruction should critically examine the material being taught and—provided they have the strength to do so—offer corrections. A fundamental prerequisite for this is that parents must actively engage in conversation with their children, starting as early as their preschool years, to inquire about the religious content they are being exposed to.