ADVERTISEMENT

Brothel owner or ‘priestess’? A convicted Phoenix woman says sexual ‘healing’ is her religion

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,647
63,060
113
10599531_768469113258745_2808803295795274425_n.jpg


In a video posted to YouTube in 2012, Tracy Elise introduced followers to a classic “transformation chamber dedicated to the great goddess” — a warmly lit bedroom with an altar bedecked with shells, candles and a framed portrait of her object of worship.

The “deity” in question was represented by a naked woman with a ball of light covering her pelvic area. “The S-U-N is the S-O-N,” Elise explained. The art as a whole represented the union of feminine and masculine aspects.

Flash forward a few years, and the self-proclaimed “priestess” had her own “S-O-N” by her side in Arizona’s Maricopa County Superior Court on Wednesday, when a jury found Elise guilty of 22 criminal charges.

The conviction included multiple counts of money laundering and pandering, as well as maintaining a house of prostitution.

“I never thought it would be like this,” Elise said upon hearing the verdict, the Arizona Republic reported. Clad in a fuchsia dress, matching shawl and silver ballet slippers, she hugged her crying son and daughter before being taken away in handcuffs.

Left behind on the defense’s desk — Elise represented herself — were an hourglass filled with orange sand, tarot cards and a sun-figure mirror. The makeshift altar hadn’t helped her case.

For years, Elise was a leader of the Phoenix Goddess Temple, which offered spiritual and sexual healing services in exchange for “donations” to the church. The temple was raided by local police in 2011, resulting in indictments for several members of the organization accused of partaking in prostitution.

But Elise has maintained that the sexual services rendered by her temple’s “goddesses” are part and parcel of their spiritual practice — that, in fact, the authorities were infringing upon her religious freedom.

“Sexuality is natural, necessary, and a lot of it happens with ignorance,” Elise said in her closing statement, the Phoenix New Times reported. “Please don’t let pornography and sex ed be the only thing people have.”

She implored jurors to see her sacred sexual healing practices as an asset to the city’s population. At the crux of her case was a bewildering question: What happens when sexual “healing” is your religion?



Deputy County Attorney Chris Sammons acknowledged in his closing argument that this was no ordinary prostitution trial.

“We’ve heard from goddesses, a high priestess, a Native American medicine man, a guru, a reality TV star, a porn star, two alien aficionados and a naked life coach,” Sammons said, according to the New Times.

No, Elise wasn’t “a common street pimp,” he said. But that didn’t excuse her crimes: running an enterprise, however “sacred,” in which individuals who engaged in sexual acts with others were subsequently paid.

It was the exchange of money that made the activities illegal, Deputy County Attorney Edward Leiter said, regardless of whether they were “spiritual.”

Elise and her business partner Wayne Clayton billed the sexual healing services as “donation only.” A 2011 Phoenix New Times cover story outlined the temple’s terminology:

There’s a euphemism for everything in temple-speak. There are no johns, but ‘seekers.’ No sex, only ‘sacred union.’ There are no handjobs, only ‘tantric touch.’ No payment is accepted, but hefty ‘donations’ are expected. There are no hookers, just ‘goddesses.’ They don’t work with penises, but ‘wands of light.’

Clayton pleaded guilty to a reduced charge last year and testified against Elise at trial. In his spiritual practice, he marketed his services to victims of sexual trauma as a purported path to healing.

Leiter characterized Clayton as a predator.

“He would act as a father figure,” Leiter said, as the Arizona Republic reported. “It was very damaging to the victims. It wasn’t helping; it was re-victimizing.”

Elise, who faces at least three years in jail (and as many as 70) when she is sentenced in April, chronicled her legal “journey” on a Facebook page called “Phoenix Goddess Temple: Return of the Priestess.”

In a video update last month, Elise stood in front of a fuchsia tapestry and held up an hourglass with orange sand indicating the short weeks remaining until the end of her trial.

She spoke cheerfully of holding public officials accountable to the Constitution, and directed supporters to join “Team Goddess Bless.”

“The state has to decide that this is in fact a real religion,” she said, “and we deserve protection.”

The Team Goddess Bless website calls on fellow goddesses to stand together as a “minority spiritual community to defend Healing and Justice for ALL!”

Speaking to the Arizona Republic following the decision, Elise’s son Ben Wade said his mother would be “continuing her ministry.”

“She is teaching women about the goddess,” he said, “and now she’s doing it wherever she’s at, which is in prison.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ix-story-c-duplicate-duplicate:homepage/story
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Same here. I don't think we can logically question her religion or that of her followers. The act itself isn't illegal, and neither is donation.

Also, actually sending her to prison is silly and wasteful.

The whole prohibition on prostitution is stupid. You can exchange dinner for sex. You can trade jewelry for sex. You can give candies and flowers in exchange for sex. You can put your mistress up in a condo and buy her a car in exchange for sex.

But cash? Oh, no..... can't do that!

o_O
 
The whole prohibition on prostitution is stupid. You can exchange dinner for sex. You can trade jewelry for sex. You can give candies and flowers in exchange for sex. You can put your mistress up in a condo and buy her a car in exchange for sex.

But cash? Oh, no..... can't do that!

o_O

Well, no you can't actually exchange those things for sex under those laws. Cash certainly makes it more obvious.
 
Technicalities. No one is getting charged with prostitution for giving flowers to his "date."

Sure they would if it was what led to the sex. You are ignoring that aspect, that it isn't a flowers/sex exchange. Flowers to a loved one might make them sex you, but I doubt your husband tells you it is because of the flowers.
 
Sure they would if it was what led to the sex. You are ignoring that aspect, that it isn't a flowers/sex exchange. Flowers to a loved one might make them sex you, but I doubt your husband tells you it is because of the flowers.

Again, technicalities. But it happens all the time and no one is charged.

If you take your date to dinner and a show, that often leads to sex. Without the dinner and show, no sex.
 
Again, technicalities. But it happens all the time and no one is charged.

If you take your date to dinner and a show, that often leads to sex. Without the dinner and show, no sex.

I don't know about you, but for me (and everybody else) it isn't the dinner and a show that made the sexy time. I'm not sure why you are so hell-bent on arguing this.

Exchange of property (flowers) for sex (sex) doesn't happen as often as you are trying to claim.
 
I don't know about you, but for me (and everybody else) it isn't the dinner and a show that made the sexy time. I'm not sure why you are so hell-bent on arguing this.

Exchange of property (flowers) for sex (sex) doesn't happen as often as you are trying to claim.

Why I'm so hell-bent on arguing this is because laws prohibiting prostitution are WRONG. It infringes upon the liberties of individuals to make their own choices with their money and their bodies. Regulate it? Sure. Outright banning it? Wrong. Not to mention that banning it does not work.
 
Why I'm so hell-bent on arguing this is because laws prohibiting prostitution are WRONG. It infringes upon the liberties of individuals to make their own choices with their money and their bodies. Regulate it? Sure. Outright banning it? Wrong. Not to mention that banning it does not work.

Nothing in your argument really supports legalizing prostitution, it is just whining about tangentially and unrelated matters.

If you want to argue for prostitution please do, I'll bet you find Natural and I on your side.
 
Why I'm so hell-bent on arguing this is because laws prohibiting prostitution are WRONG. It infringes upon the liberties of individuals to make their own choices with their money and their bodies. Regulate it? Sure. Outright banning it? Wrong. Not to mention that banning it does not work.
And it will bring in tax revenue on income which is currently off the books. And it will increase employment numbers.
 
Nothing in your argument really supports legalizing prostitution, it is just whining about tangentially and unrelated matters.

If you want to argue for prostitution please do, I'll bet you find Natural and I on your side.

I'm pretty sure I argued for it in the post that the above comment replied to.
 
I'm pretty sure I argued for it in the post that the above comment replied to.

You keep arguing by relation: "X is legal therefore this should be legal"; "Z is legal therefore this should be legal". You've done it with prostitution and polygamy.

Here is a tip, just argue the merits of your actual position instead of trying to use the merits of others' positions.

I agree that prostitution should be legal, I'm just not dumb enough to argue that prostitution should be legal because people buy flowers and then later have sex.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT