Law of One Language as a Weapon: Service-to-Self Explained

Early in a conversation that runs close to an hour and forty-five minutes, host Mark Vicente asks his guest the question that frames everything after it: where did this cross the line for you? Aaron Abke, a teacher whose work is built on the Law of One and A Course in Miracles, has agreed to step well outside his usual lane. He is not there to debate cosmology. He is there because, as he tells Vicente, if these abuses are happening, nothing could be more important. The episode, published in May 2026, takes one specific claim seriously: that critics of Bentinho Massaro are "operating from" a service-to-self entity, a phrase drawn directly from the Law of One and used, Vicente argues, as a way to dismiss anyone who pushes back. Abke's answer is to read the text back to the people using it, and to show how closely its description of negative beings fits what former members have described.

Why would a Law of One teacher go public against another teacher?

The motive, as Abke frames it, is not a theological quarrel. It is watching a set of tools get turned on people. Vicente sets up the context in his introduction: the people who have spoken out, Jacqueline, Keilan, and Jade, are being told in the comment sections and by people still inside Massaro's world that they "didn't understand the teachings," that they weren't advanced enough, that if they had grasped what was on offer they would have seen things differently. Vicente calls the dismissal exhausting, and says he has heard the same argument from people inside other groups he has covered.

Abke's own path into the conversation is personal. He describes an encounter with Massaro years earlier, and says that watching the Inst@Guru interviews made pieces fall into place that had not made sense since 2019. Vicente summarizes the pattern Abke saw: the constant jokes about his sexuality, the steady effort to knock him down, what Vicente calls "the same playbook" Abke believes was used on Keilan. "Same pattern, different target," is how Vicente puts it. By the time Abke reached Jade's interview, he says, the picture was complete. He contacted all three.

Who is Aaron Abke, and how did he end up in the Law of One?

Abke's biography is the kind of arc that tends to produce a particular sort of teacher. He grew up in evangelical Christianity as a third-generation pastor's son, a self-described "golden boy" who led worship young and set his life up to follow his father and grandfather into the pulpit. He earned a bachelor's degree in music and theology at Oral Roberts University and began a pastoral career at 23.

The doubts came earlier than the job. He says he started wrestling with Christian doctrine around 17, stored the questions away, and was forced to confront them when he became worship pastor at a church where he was leading Sunday services. In his words, "I don't believe half the stuff coming out of our mouths from the pulpit." He quit the job, left Christianity, and spent roughly six years on what he calls a hero's journey, asking what he believed about God, who he was, and what the universe was. That search led him through Hinduism and Buddhism and eventually to two texts he describes as life-changing: the Law of One and A Course in Miracles.

He began making YouTube videos about those teachings "just for fun," and some of them took off. He moved from personal training into full-time online teaching and one-on-one coaching in August 2019, and that is the period when he began communicating with Massaro. The two eventually met in person after Abke moved to Denver. That detail matters for the argument that follows, because Abke is not speaking about a stranger's teachings from a distance. He knows the texts, and he knows the man who claims to speak through them.

What is the Law of One, and why does its vocabulary matter?

Vicente asks for the basics, and Abke gives them. The Law of One is a channeled text from the 1980s, produced by a group of researchers who, in the mid-1970s, had become fascinated with UFOs and extraterrestrial contact. They assembled a group of twelve channelers and tried for roughly a decade to make contact. Their most consequential insight, as Abke tells it, was that if you want to understand advanced beings, you should care less about their technology and more about their spirituality and philosophy, and that it might be possible to communicate mind to mind.

That origin is important because it explains why the text is so psychologically detailed. It is not a rulebook for gurus. It is a long, often dense account of how consciousness moves, how beings choose their orientation, and what that choice does to the people around them. Its most-quoted framework, and the one at the center of this episode, is polarity: the idea that beings organize themselves around either serving others or serving themselves. For a community that prizes its vocabulary, that framework becomes a kind of grammar. Once members learn it, they can name almost anything.

What does service-to-self actually describe?

This is where the conversation gets its force. Vicente's framing is that STS, as the term is used in Massaro's circle, is deployed as a weapon: a way to dismiss, discredit, and isolate anyone who pushes back. Abke's response is to go back to the source. The question he asks is simple: is that actually what the text says? How does the polarity really work, and what does it look like in practice?

What he lays out is not a broad debunking of Massaro's teachings. It is a precise account of how the Ra material describes beings who use knowledge, spiritual language, and psychological manipulation to control others. The point is that a negative orientation is characterized by what it does to people, not by how it labels its critics. Vicente says the description maps closely onto what the three former members have reported. He is careful to frame this as a reading of the text, not a verdict on any individual.

"I am grateful that Aaron felt compelled to speak out and not be silent about them being weaponized." (Mark Vicente, introduction)

That distinction is the core of the piece. A text can be loved and still be misused. Abke says he loves these teachings, and that is why he couldn't stay silent watching them become a tool of control.

What did Abke see when he met Massaro in person?

The episode's own summary of Abke's experience is blunt. He found a figure "bearing almost no resemblance" to the one on YouTube: crude, sexually predatory, emotionally unhinged, and deeply insecure. The conversation does not hinge on a single incident, but the description returns to the constant gay jokes and the relentless attempts to knock him down. Vicente reports that Abke had been sitting with the experience for years before the interviews made him act. These are Abke's accounts as presented in the episode; they are not independently verified in the material here, and the excerpt does not include a response from Massaro.

It is worth noticing what the critics are not saying, as Vicente describes them. The argument is not that Massaro's ideas are foreign to the Law of One. It is that the way those ideas are deployed, to make dissent itself the evidence of spiritual failure, is a pattern that the text itself warns about.

Is the "you didn't understand the teachings" defense valid?

Abke's implicit answer is no, and the logic is worth following. If a teacher can say that anyone who disagrees has been captured by a negative entity, then disagreement becomes proof of the teacher's claim. Vicente draws the parallel explicitly: "I've heard the same [garbage] from every single cult." The dismissal does not engage the argument. It relocates the problem into the critic.

Abke goes further in a passage on what he calls a litmus test. Reaching for solipsism, the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist, he suggests it works as one of the best tests anyone can use on a teacher who is teaching the teachings. The excerpt cuts off before the full framework is stated, so it is best to treat this as a direction of argument rather than a complete method. But the direction is clear: the question is not what a teacher claims, but how the teacher treats those who question the claim.

He also points to a warning sign he sees in teachers who say that when followers refuse to listen, something is wrong with the followers. Read against the Law of One's own account of manipulation, that line becomes a test of its own.

What about the claim to be Ra, and the letter from the Himalayas?

The conversation also addresses Massaro's claim to be Ra, a sixth-density being, and his recent letter from the Himalayas. The material here does not give the letter's full text, so the article cannot characterize its contents beyond what the episode says. What the episode does establish is the logic Abke applies: when someone claims a status that places them above critique, the claim itself deserves the same scrutiny as any other statement, and the Law of One's own description of how beings operate is the standard to measure it against.

What does genuine transformation actually require?

Near the end, the conversation turns from diagnosis to the question of what real change looks like, for the teacher and for the community. Abke's argument is that transformation is not measured by vocabulary, by how fluently a person can invoke polarity or density, or by how many followers stay loyal. It is measured by whether a teacher's conduct matches the values the teacher preaches, and whether people are free to leave, question, and speak without being labeled as the problem.

The episode closes on a note of gratitude. Vicente thanks Abke and presents the conversation as an effort to understand what he suspects is a misuse of these teachings, not a debate over the framework itself. "This is not a debate about the Law of One," the episode's description says. "Aaron loves these teachings. What he couldn't stay silent about was watching them be used as a weapon."

Where to go from here

If the argument in this episode interests you, the most useful next step is to read the Law of One material yourself, especially the passages on polarity and on how service-to-self beings relate to others, and to test the claims against the text rather than against any teacher's summary, including this one. Watch the full conversation to hear Abke's account in his own words, and note what Vicente asks and what he leaves unresolved. Then look at the public record: the former members' accounts, Massaro's own responses, and the letter from the Himalayas, read alongside each other. A teaching that is honest about its own warnings should be able to withstand that kind of reading.