I use the word "cult" in a valence neutral way. For me, it means a culture with a strong differential meaning gradient between inside and outside (where 'meaning' is a constellation of patterns of engagement, i.e. perception-action relations). This could be also called the cults enclosing meaning membrane, by analogy to cells. I do distinguish an "open cult", where two-way communication occurs across the cultural boundary, from a "closed cult", where there is not two-way communication (either one-way, as in pure missionary organizations, or none, as in separatist organizations). Closed cults are dangerous because they have no correction mechanisms such as "friends outside the cult notice that there is dangerous things going on inside the cult". If there is no enclosing meaning membrane, society loses the value of experimenting with differentiated forms of meaning. We get cultural homogeneity. We get individual atomization. The potential loss of privacy from cell phones, combined with social media replacing in-person interactions, I believe, are two major factors in the massive weakening of the ability to create "weird but fundamentally positive" cults. It is good for both for society and for individuals to open-cult-maxx. A great place to start is an open cult of family: do you have a family? Is it strange in a fundamentally positive way? If not, you are forgoing the opportunity to benefit others by not performing small scale social experiments that yield value possibilities. And, your probably having less fun.