NBC News probes allegations against Real Love founder Greg Baer

Greg Baer’s Real Love movement promised peace, confidence and meaning, but the allegations around it point to a darker pattern: a leader who blurred the line between counselor, parent figure and spiritual authority. Followers were told to call him “Daddy,” and Baer held people in his lap as if they were babies, creating an intimacy that some participants now describe as deeply unsettling.

The organization presents itself as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) with EIN 46-4774012, and Baer says he founded The Real Love Company after selling his ophthalmology practice. He says he has spent 25 years teaching his method. Real Love’s materials describe a broad media and outreach operation, including books, trainings, worldwide seminars, radio and TV programs, and more than 90 archived conference calls for parents, all built around what it calls a transformational process that replaces “crazy” with peace, confidence and meaning.

That kind of language is central to how coercive control can work inside self-help movements. Words like love, family and healing can create trust while also discouraging skepticism, especially when a founder is cast as both expert and emotional anchor. Baer’s own site includes a September 6, 2024 essay titled “Why Real Love® is Not a Cult,” a direct rebuttal to criticism that the group’s structure and rituals had crossed a line.

At retreats, attendees would line up for the chance to interact with Baer, a dynamic that made access to him itself a form of currency. Some participants have described the results as transformative, which helps explain why these groups can hold on even as concerns grow. But the allegations that the encounters went beyond lap-sitting and baby-like holding suggest a system where dependency, reverence and personal vulnerability were folded into the brand.

The public health concern is bigger than one founder. When a movement markets itself as emotional repair, but operates outside the safeguards that govern licensed care, vulnerable people can be left without clear boundaries or recourse. The case raises questions about oversight, accountability and how easily a message of belonging can be used to normalize behavior that would be rejected in any ordinary therapeutic setting.