Néo-Phare
French new religious movement
Néo-Phare (lit. 'New Lighthouse') was a small French new religious movement, often described as a cult or doomsday cult, founded by Arnaud Mussy in January 2001. It formed through a schism with Phare-Ouest (lit. 'West Lighthouse'), which was founded by the esoteric writer André Bouguenec. Bouguenec's belief system incorporated Kabbalah and hermeticism, and he also proclaimed that he was God. Mussy joined the group in 1997, and Bouguenec died the same year. Viewing the original group as too rigid, Mussy and 20 members left the group and formed Néo-Phare.
After the September 11 attacks, Mussy predicted the end of the world, the time of which was repeatedly delayed after it failed to occur. In July 2002, a member killed himself and two other members were said to have attempted to kill themselves. Following this, Mussy was tried in France on the grounds that he had brainwashed his followers and was responsible for the suicide and attempted suicides. He was found guilty, and given a three-year suspended sentence and a €115,000 fine. The group was dissolved after Mussy was arrested; it only existed for a year and a half.
The public source identifies “Néo-Phare” as french new religious movement. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Néo-Phare, French and religious.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Néo-Phare”, the useful work is to connect “french new religious movement” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 31, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q130342047. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2001, 1997 and 2002.
Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Néo-Phare”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Néo-Phare primary sources, Néo-Phare archive and Néo-Phare research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Néo-Phare”?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Néo-Phare” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.