I find the comparisons to cults to be completely bizarre. It's definitely not a cult. Or at least, not a very good one. You can leave if you want, you don't have to participate in anything you don't want to, there's no "drive to recruit more members", or even really to become a member at all, it's staffed by volunteers, there's no central figure or authority like most cults, there's very little pressure to participate after the NWTA beyond encouragement to consider attending the weekly or biweekly groups that the article talks about or perhaps volunteering to staff a future NWTA. Placing it between scientology and Tony Robbins is completely off base imo, but I have no direct experience with either. All I'd say is that if they're trying create a cult to rope people into an organization, they're doing a terrible job of it. And it's not even clear what the goal would be. The suggested monthly donation of $10 to support the nonprofit if you do become a member, which again, they don't really push at all? Seems like a pretty shitty cult to spend decades ramping up.