84 here has been much debate over whether New Age spirituality (NAS) is a useful category and, if so, how best to characterize the phenomena clustered under that heading. Historically-minded scholars generally agree, however, on the value of distinguishing between narrower and broader uses of the term “new age”. In the narrower sense, it refers above all to ideas in the writ- ings of post-heosophist Alice Bailey (1880–1949), which were picked up by the new age networks of the 1950s, many of them UFO related, and trans- formed into a more activist form by 1960s utopian communities, most nota- bly Findhorn. he movement, narrowly conceived, was British-based and relied upon occultist traditions that had long been inluential there (Melton 1995; Sutclife 2003a; Albanese 2007; Hanegraaf 2009: 345). In a more gen- eral sense, scholars have used “new age” as a catch-all term for the much more extensive and complex “cultic milieu” of the 1980s and beyond, which was dominated “by the so-called metaphysical and New hought traditions typical of American alternative culture” (Hanegraaf 2009: 344–45). Sutclife depicts this as “a popular hermeneutical shift in the meaning of ‘New Age’ … [such that] at the turn of the 1970s, … ‘New Age’ as apocalyptic emblem of the near future gave way to ‘New Age’ as humanistic idiom of self-realisation in the here-and-now” (Sutclife 2003a: 5). Although many people self-iden- tiied as new age in the general sense in the 1980s, the number of self-iden- tiied “new agers” declined in the 1990s with most becoming just “spiritual” as the movement moved “from its traditional status as a counterculture” and into the mainstream (Hanegraaf 2009: 345; Albanese 2007: 496–516; MacKian 2012). In this more general sense, scholars tend to characterize new age spiritu- ality in terms of: 1. individualism 2. shopping, spiritual supermarket 3. seeking, and 5. HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT: THE ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS OF “UNORGANIZED RELIGION” Ann Taves and Michael Kinsella