Yep. A few months ago I signed up for a weekend course on this sort of stuff and there they were, a lot of eager sycophants sitting soaking up the rhetoric, questions loaded toward factoid answers that were meant to seem obvious. The attendees nodded and chuckled on cue, the speakers allowed dramatic pauses to let ideas sink in. Nice histrionics. If I remember right, all but one of the attendees were women.

What wasn't required was someone asking doubt-casting questions, like things I described further up the thread. I was soon ostracised and left after the first day. It was suggested I leave for being disruptive though I claimed one shouldn't just accept things without feeling comfortable with the issue. Simple dielectics.

(I admit though that signing up was mischief on my part since I'd already encountered one of the main LoA protagonists via literature, looked him up to find he'd been torn apart by a journalist/adept from the Guardian newspaper. The adept concluded that this guru couldn't possibly himself believe what he was trying to persuade others to believe. He wanted to sell books. He declared to the journalist that he was very wealthy. (Can't mention his name because of forum rules but let's just say it begins with D).

I was more interested in process than content and I could see how easily the vulnerable were turned on to this new conditioning. Not that I'm thinking of making money with some pseudo self-help variant. Looks easy though. Write a booklet, get a few mates to give it exceptional reviews...
The process of validation has always concerned some of us. LoA is exceptionally difficult to validate because too many other factors come into play....but it sells.