The ban arose from the state’s perception that Falun Gong had become a significant, autonomous force in society, one that lay outside the established political and religious frameworks. Authorities observed its rapid growth—by some official estimates tens of millions of adherents—and regarded such a large, independent community as a potential challenge to the Communist Party’s monopoly on organization and ideology. In a system that prizes tight control over social groups, media, and belief, a movement with its own networks, publications, and international connections appeared deeply unsettling. This unease was amplified by historical memories of large religious or quasi-religious movements that had previously destabilized Chinese regimes.

A pivotal moment was a large, peaceful gathering of practitioners near the central leadership compound in Beijing, where they sought recognition and protection from negative treatment and media portrayals. Though orderly and nonviolent, this demonstration vividly revealed Falun Gong’s capacity for rapid, large-scale mobilization outside Party channels. To the political leadership, such visible solidarity signaled not only spiritual commitment but also organizational strength, and it was interpreted as a direct challenge to Party authority and social stability. The event thus became a catalyst for more drastic measures.

At the ideological level, Falun Gong’s teachings—rooted in qigong practices and drawing from Buddhist and Daoist concepts such as karma and moral cultivation—stood in stark contrast to the state’s officially atheist, Marxist-Leninist worldview. The movement’s emphasis on spiritual truths and moral principles was labeled “superstitious” and portrayed as pseudoscientific, incompatible with the Party’s claim to rational, scientific authority. Authorities formally classified Falun Gong as a “xiejiao,” often rendered as “evil cult” or “heretical teaching,” a traditional category historically used to legitimize harsh suppression of heterodox religious currents. This designation framed the movement not as a benign spiritual path, but as a destabilizing force that had to be eradicated.

Underlying these actions was a deep-seated fear of organized dissent and of any moral authority that might rival the Party’s. The influence of Falun Gong’s founder, its independent structure, and its capacity to inspire disciplined practice and shared values all contributed to the sense that it could evolve into a parallel locus of loyalty. From a spiritual perspective, one can see a clash between a state seeking uniform ideological control and a movement centered on inner cultivation, meditation, and moral refinement. The ban, and the subsequent campaign to dismantle the movement and pressure practitioners to abandon their beliefs, reflects this fundamental tension between an inward-looking path of spiritual practice and an outward-looking system intent on preserving unchallenged political and ideological dominance.