Turning Point, according to one ex-Scientologist, is the inheritor of the materials and methodology of the Erhard Seminars, known widely as EST. Also, it is of interest that Erhard may have “borrowed” key behavioral concepts from L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. So, in that sense, they are “sister” systems.
In either case, there really is a body of personal injury law revolving around these groups which suggests that yes indeed, certain practices can do harm to some, if not all, participants. For some, the brain is like an off-road vehicle that can handle almost anything. For others, it’s like one of those little putt-putts that can’t even handle a good bump in the road, let alone a dirt trail of the brutal kind fostered by these confrontational catharsis-for-money businesses. In law we call this the glass jaw or the eggshell victim scenario, where liability obtains even if an act that would not harm a robustly healthy person nevertheless harms a person with an unseen and as yet untriggered sensitivity.
Which gets us to the question of whether such courses merit regulation. It is a difficult problem. The constitutional considerations of free speech, free association, freedom of contract, etc., are paramount values to a free people, but they have to be weighed against the duty of the state to use the police power to protect the citizenry from palpable harm. This has never been an easy balance to achieve. Which is why much of the police power against such marginal activities comes in the form of civil personal injury suits rather than oppressive and overinclusive regulatory straightjackets.
My own position is that better education on the risk, kind of a truth-in-labeling approach, combined with the power of tort law to penalize proven bad behavior, would be the way to go. Ideally, it would be like those commercials where they tell you all the different ways a drug might harm or even kill a small population of users. Frankly, that kind of publicity is just what these groups need.