Indie Auditors

These Independent Scientology auditors are proponents of "Standard Tech" which means they strive to meet or exceed the guidelines laid down by LRH — the source of Scientology auditing technology — for the performance of auditing. Most are veteran auditors with thousands of hours under their belt.

Our editorial policy is to publish the good with the bad as long as they're real. In the case of a negative review on an organization, if a representative from the organization feels the reviewer misrepresented what happened, he or she is free to contact us to propose a rebuttal. However, the rebuttal would have to be from someone in the organization who was actually there in the incident. In other words, if you went into a Church of Scientology and the Executive Director treated you badly, you would be free to write a review detailing your experience. If the E.D. disagreed with your version of the facts, he or she could propose a rebuttle. A rebuttal would not be acceptable from a third party who was not actually there.

But in the case of an auditor, the situation is different and requires an exception: if an ex-client writes a negative review on an auditor, the auditor cannot write a rebuttal because of point #2 of the Auditor's Code:

"2. I promise not to invalidate the preclear's case or gains in or out of session."

To allow negative reviews on auditors would be rather imbalanced, like a boxing match where one fighter was not allowed to hit back. An organization is not the same as an individual. Auditors are valuable people. We need many more of them and they deserve support.

The only other alternative would be to leave them out altogether, but that would be even worse.