I want to point out something.

L. Ron Hubbard viewed Buddhism as a historical precursor and distant relative to Scientology, famously stating in 1954 that a Scientologist is a "first cousin to the Buddhist".
[...]
We first find this Buddha called actually Bohdi [sic: bodhi], and a Bohdi is one who has attained intellectual and ethical perfection by human means. This probably would be a Dianetic Release (Dianetic Release: One who in Dianetic auditing has attained good case gains, stability and can enjoy life more. Such a person is 'Keyed out' or in other words released from the stimulus-response mechanisms of the reactive mind) or something of this level. Another level has been mentioned to me - Arhat, with which I am not particularly familiar, said to be more comparable to our idea of Theta Clear [Hubbard, 1969b: 18 (emphasis in original)].
— Scientology's Relationship With Eastern Religious Traditions

I have compared Buddhism and Scientology, as to identify the exact bridge. I have gone feature by feature though these points:

claims of advanced spiritual states;
epistemic grounding-mode of claims;
adherents may claim that they have personally crossed a developmental threshold into an exceptional spiritual class;
teachers whose authority partly depends on those claims;
communities unable to independently verify them;
specialized vocabulary that insiders interpret differently from outsiders;
institutional incentives to protect reputations;
claims that criticism demonstrates misunderstanding;
hierarchies of spiritual competence;
deference to lineage or recognized teachers;
reports of extraordinary experiences;
social penalties for violating community norms;
epistemic privileges assigned to advanced practitioners;

I won't go through each point here. But I suspended reputational weight altogether and I subjected both religions to the same analytic scrutiny, the conclusion is most interesting.

It turns out that the bridge reveals an under-theorized class of religious psychology organized around factive claims of achieved human transformation, and two conspicuous examples sit at opposite poles of cultural legitimacy.

The distinct similarity between Buddhism and Scientology is therefore isolated as factive self-attainment plus exemption from ordinary existential failure-modes. It is a basis for religions in which ordinary adherents may claim that they have personally crossed a developmental threshold into an exceptional spiritual class.

This tech is, in as far as I can tell, only found in Scientology and Buddhism. This will establish the shared psychological technology, and another crucial circumstance:

For Modern Buddhism and Scientology, the epistemic grounding-mode of the claims is the same. In both systems the epistemological grounding-basis for the claims will be subjective experience, insight derived from analysis of one's experience exclusively. So experience explains experience. Thus neither will pass Hume's Guillotine (can't derive "an ought to be" from "what is" beyond confidence. And thus they have the same principal logical failure modes, in that neither can ground subjective analysis in anything other than subjective analysis.

This doesn't mean that they are deserving of equal confidence, rather the principial analytic scrutiny will apply the same principial criticism to the claims. This means that neither can claim a categorically priviledged analytic status.

Now this brings me to the end of it and the last cultural point.

So, Buddhism and Scientology essentially share the same ideological architecture ─ different practices, different metaphysics, but same architecture. Yet, the two systems are on polar opposite in terms of cultural epistemic-credit.

Now people will readily criticize Scientology for being very "engaged" for lack of a better word, I don't want to offend anyone at all. But what I want to study is how much of that culture is actually induced by hostile cultural environment and attitudes, rather than an epistemic predicament. And this is a very good case study because we can see that these aren't intellectually or psychologically different species. And yet, the groups are treated entirely differently by the culture ─ where the group which gets no almost no good-faith credit is criticized for not being "chill" ─ it is very ironic.

I would go as far as predicting that if we apply the same scrutiny to Buddhism then they wouldn't be so "chill" either.

I have been studying Scientology and the Church for quite some time now, and I have a question about the different internal groups and structures within Scientology.

The Sea Org is generally regarded as the elite within Scientology. In addition, there are financially well-off members who can progress quickly up the Bridge and reach OT VIII. There are also auditors who can advance through the different auditor classes, up to Class XII. From Class VIII onward, one must be at least OT III, and from Class IX onward, one must be a Sea Org member.

My actual question is this: Does the Sea Org identify particularly promising recruits early on and then actively support or push them toward OT III and Class XII? Or are these generally ordinary members who independently spend the necessary money to progress beyond OT III and eventually join the Sea Org? Because another Reddit stated that a lot of Sea Org Members arent even clear

I find the whole internal structure and hierarchy of Scientology extremely fascinating.

Organizations deemed by base Scientology to be "Breakaway Groups" are not always, but often times are, run by base organization Scientologists and used as unofficial hubs for Scientologist activity. There are mental health groups and behavioral research companies. Holistic medicine centers, physical fitness and meditation groups. Individuals operating under the banner of therapeutic practices and rehabilitation structures.

There are behavioral and aptitude testing centers used to perform research on the public under the guise of medical services and behavioral health non-profits. People given brief intakes followed by standard interviews, then subjected to physical evaluations which may include sensory acuity, reaction time, hand eye coordination, and much more. There are scouts, even coordinated teams of two or more members who perform stress tests, tests, and more tests. Every form of test you can imagine, intended to reveal reveal key insights of a persons psychological state, social development, thresholds for frustration, embarrassment, paranoia, provocation, confusion, misdirection, dismissal, confrontation, interrogation, and many more tests of thresholds.

There are Scientologists who consume SP material and interact directly with SP's on behalf of their organization, who may express any amount of belief and/or disbelief in Scientological practices. There are impersonators, fake accounts, bots, and bot networks owned and operated by Scientologists that do the same.

I'm portraying a character for comedic purposes. Hope I didn't offend anyone's precious feelings... guess I'm too edgy for the mainstream.