A Letter to Editor of the Wall Street Journal

November 4, 1999

Dear Editor,

Mr. Craig Smith's Nov. 1 article, "American Dream Finds Chinese Spiritual Leader," reads surprisingly like the Chinese vilification "news stories" I encountered this past summer in Beijing. Similarly, a number of recent WSJ articles on Falun Gong have recklessly relied on questionable Chinese sources for critical information. This deals readers a great setback in understanding. The current human rights crisis in China dictates a more responsible representation of Mr. Li Hongzhi and his spiritual practice, Falun Gong.

Li begs a more informed, sophisticated characterization than as the latest guru-turned-millionaire. He is neither guru nor millionaire. His story is far more exceptional than Smith's article suggests. Li's life bucks the American dream, if anything, foregoing potentially huge material gains in order to preserve the integrity of his teachings. Smith's reductive, quantitative caricature of Li somehow overlooks this.

As a "qigong master," Li could be extremely marketable, and particularly in the West, where exotic, alternative healing methods grow more lucrative by the day. Savvy to this situation, many qigong masters have recently abandoned their long-standing secretive traditions, coming to the public to capitalize on this hungry market. The qigong "treatments" they perform on patients start at around $100 for an hour-long session, while a ten-hour qigong class or workshop can run from $300 to $500 per student. One such master in New Jersey earns over $200,000 a year.

Despite this enticing situation, Li has remained an animated critic of his colleagues' behavior, referring to them as "qigong merchants." Since bringing his Falun Gong to the public in 1992, Li has shunned such chicanery, instead preferring to keep his qigong pure and unadulterated. Li taught publicly in China until 1995, always charging the lowest rates in the country for his classes (about $6 US for 9 sessions) and returning virtually all income to local organizers and his staff.

Since 1995 Li has only spoken at conferences and has refused any payment or gifts. All of his talks in the West have been completely free of charge and open to the public, and all Falun Gong activities have always been without charges. Were Li interested in money, he could simply ask his 70 to 100 million students to donate a couple of dollars and he would become a billionaire overnight. Of course, Li would no sooner do this than would his students respond, for contrary to what Smith writes, Li's teachings are not a "belief system which depends on unquestioning faith in his strange pronouncements." Were this the case, his students would likely not include the likes of high-ranking communist party members, military officials, medical professionals, university faculty, and over 10,000 college students. All one needs to do is speak with some of these persons to realize that their moral aspirations, not gullibility, draws them to the practice.

Faithfully relying upon data provided by the Chinese government to portray Li and his practice is most haphazard. Anyone visiting Beijing in the summer will find even the temperature reported untruthfully, as this skirts a law allowing workers to remain home when it is dangerously hot. Similarly, the government changed its figure for the number of Falun Gong practitioners from 70 to 100 million (reported around the beginning of this year) to 2 million at the time of the crackdown in July, attempting to deflate the enormity of Falun Gong's influence. When Li claims that 70 million practice Falun Gong, he is only citing his government's own figures.

China has and will fabricate whatever "evidence" it needs in order to carry out its hostile campaign against Falun Gong. For instance, when the practice was first banned in July, the Chinese government claimed that some 350 people had died from Falun Gong-that is, in the seven years since Li began teaching it publicly. Just two weeks later, however, after harsh criticism from the international community for its excessive measures, China changed this number. The figure suddenly swooned to just over 700 "tragic deaths."

As if to further confirm the elastic nature of "facts" in China, Chinese officials have in the last month again doubled the alleged number of Falun Gong deaths, putting it at 1400. With the Chinese government taking honest reporting so lightly, it is no wonder it considers Li, who extols the value of "truthfulness," a threat. Most likely the only deaths related to Falun Gong in recent months have come by way of excessive, sanctioned torturing of its adherents. Amnesty International is but one entity backing this contention.

China is so bent on defaming Li that it has published millions of comic books entitled, "Li Hongzhi: The Man and His Evil Deeds." These venomous attacks would be laughable were the stakes not so high. Many other such examples exist. In recent weeks China has even manufactured laws to retroactively prosecute Falun Gong practitioners. Chinese officials have referred to Falun Gong as "heretical" and "an evil religion" which "must be crushed." Interesting, as this is from a government that promotes atheism. Can such a government prove a reliable source for information on those it attacks?

If one wants a financial story on Li and his qigong, once could consider, for starters, the economic impact of Falun Gong in China. The health care expenses spared by millions' practice of Falun Gong (which has healing effects) are substantial. Numerous formal health surveys have been conducted in China on Falun Gong's health benefits and financial savings. Done by reputable medical professionals and years before the government crackdown, they provide some extraordinary data. Two studies have found that over 90% of two-year Falun Gong practitioners were cured of all illnesses-including those chronic and severe-without medical treatment. For a darker feature, one could also consider the tremendous expenses incurred with the Chinese government's persecution of Falun Gong. Given the scope and vigor of the crusade, these are bound to be alarming.

The sensationalism of Smith's article's further does interested readers like myself a disservice by telling nothing of substance about the piece's supposed central figure, Li. Instead, we learn in the prominent "Brief Biography" not about salient moments in Li's public teaching career or the Chinese government's responses, but instead about a house that somebody attempted to give him and that his birth date is disputed. Sadly, this reads more like tabloid.

After reading Smith's story on Li, readers remain unaware that ten major US cities and four states have honored Li with various awards and proclamations. For instance, the city of Chicago proclaimed July 25th this year, "Master Li Hongzhi Day," while the state bestowed upon him the Illinois Treasurer's Award for Outstanding Service. Mayor Anthony Williams of Washington, D.C. proclaimed this past August 9-13 "Falun Dafa Week." Meanwhile, the city of Houston even went so far as to name Li an "Honorary Citizen" and "Goodwill Ambassador." These accolades tell readers much more about Li than some irrelevant New Jersey estate.

When Li's writings are cited-and badly out of context, no less-what is presented are not the core of his teachings, but some colorful, marginal remarks which by no means inform his philosophy. Li's three published English-language works, for instance, nowhere mention "aliens on Earth" or "the existence of cities in outer space," as Smith states in his article. Nor will one soon find his students speculating over such things. It appears Smith has gone to great lengths to find something dramatic, making for a story that reveals Li to be laughable or easily dismissed. Li's core teachings of "truthfulness, benevolence, forbearance," go unmentioned, as does his insistence that supernatural powers, personal profits and self-interests are things that a Falun Gong practitioner should never pursue.

When somebody donates a building or funds to a church, it is called charity and deemed virtuous. But when somebody donates a building out of gratitude to a spiritual teacher, it is called scandal and deemed-implicitly-selling out. Never mind that the donation was turned down. It would appear that this "Chinese spiritual leader" has rejected Smith's American dream in New Jersey. If Falun Gong practitioners were interviewed with the respect and deference given Chinese Communist Party rhetoric, perhaps Smith and others would not suffer such poor judgement.

I sincerely hope this letter finds Mr. Smith and your readers more informed.

A college student