Stripping The Gurus

STRIPPING THE GURUS
Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment*

Ramakrishna was a homoerotic pedophile.
His chief disciple, Vivekananda, visited brothels in India.
Krishnamurti carried on an affair for over twenty years with the wife of
a close friend. Chögyam Trungpa drank himself into an early grave.
One of Adi Da’s nine “wives” is a former Playboy centerfold. Bhagwan
Shree Rajneesh sniffed laughing gas to get high. Andrew Cohen,
guru and publisher of What Is Enlightenment? magazine, by his own
reported admission sometimes feels “like a god.”
These are typical of the “wizened sages” to whom otherwise-sensible
people give their devotion and unquestioning obedience, surrendering
their independence, willpower, and life’s savings in the hope of realiz-
ing for themselves the same “enlightenment” as they ascribe to the
“perfect, God-realized” master.
Why?
Is it for being emotionally vulnerable and “brainwashed,” as the “anti-
cultists” assert? Or for being “willingly psychologically seduced,” as
the apologists unsympathetically counter, confident that they them-
selves are “too smart” to ever fall into the same trap? Or have devo-
tees simply walked, with naïvely open hearts and thirsty souls, into
inherent psychological dynamics of power and obedience which have
showed themselves in classic psychological studies from Milgram to
Zimbardo, and to which each one of us is susceptible every day of our
lives?
Like the proud “Rude Boy” Cohen allegedly said, with a laugh, in re-
sponse to the nervous breakdown of one of his devoted followers: “It
could happen to any one of you.”
Don’t let it happen to you. Don’t get suckered in. Be prepared. Be in-
formed. Find out what reportedly goes on behind the scenes in even
the best of our world’s spiritual communities.
You can start by reading this book.
* The inclusion of any particular individual in Stripping the Gurus is not meant to suggest or im-
ply that he or she represents him- or herself as a guru, nor is it meant to suggest or imply that he
or she has indulged in sex, violence, the abuse of others, or any other illegal or immoral activi-
ties.
Praise for Stripping the Gurus
Armed with wit, insight, and truly astonishing research,

Geoffrey Falk utterly demolishes the notion of the enlight-
ened guru who can lead devotees to nirvana. This entertain-
ing and yet deadly serious book should be read by everyone
pursuing or thinking of pursuing the path of guru devotion.
—John Horgan, author of Rational Mysticism
Stripping the Gurus is superb—one of the best books of its

kind I have ever read. The research is meticulous, the writ-
ing engaging, and the overall thesis: devastatingly true. A
stellar book.
—Dr. David C. Lane, California State University
This gripping and disturbing book should be read by anyone

who finds themself revering a spiritual teacher.
—Susan Blackmore, author of The Meme Machine
Geoffrey Falk’s delightful but disturbing unmasking of reli-

gious prophets and preachers who command a vast follow-
ing is a welcome contribution to the literature on the gurus
and god-men of all religions.
—Dr. Narasingha P. Sil, Western Oregon University
No one involved in contemporary spirituality can afford to

ignore this book. It exposes the darker side of modern spiri-
tual movements, those embarrassing—sometime vicious or
criminal—reports which the leaders of these movements pre-
fer to hide. With wit and humility, and without abandoning
the verities of religion, Falk has provided a corrective cri-
tique of groups that peddle enlightenment and transcen-
dence. A must!
—Len Oakes, author of Prophetic Charisma
STRIPPING
THE
GURUS
Sex, Violence,
Abuse and Enlightenment*
GEOFFREY D. FALK
* The inclusion of any particular individual in this book

is not meant to suggest or imply that he or she repre-
sents him- or herself as a guru, nor is it meant to sug-
gest or imply that he or she has indulged in sex, vio-
lence, the abuse of others, or any other illegal or im-
moral activities.
Copyright © 2005 by Geoffrey D. Falk
Published by Million Monkeys Press

312-411 Duplex Ave
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M4R 1V2
Web: www.millionmonkeyspress.com
ISBN: 0-9736203-3-1 (pdf)

First edition (version 1.0).
This eBook is not copy-protected. It is, however, copy-

righted, and may not be distributed without the explicit writ-
ten permission of the author, Geoffrey D. Falk.
The writing of this book required an investment of over

5000 hours, and more than $5000 in research materials,
on the part of the author. If you have received this copy
without paying for it, please go to www.millionmonkeys
press.com to purchase a legal copy at a very reasonable
price. (Sample chapters for the book are online at
www.strippingthegurus.com.)
Printable posters and flyers, suitable for posting/dis-

tributing wherever nontraditional religions themselves
tend to advertise or recruit, can be downloaded from the
Media Room section of the Million Monkeys Press web-
site.
Trademarks: “TM” and “Transcendental Meditation” are

service marks registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development
Corporation. “Coke” is a registered trademark of the Coca-
Cola Company. “Barbie” is a registered trademark of Mattel,
Inc. “Molly Maid” is a trademark of Molly Maid Interna-
tional, Inc. “Spiral Dynamics” is a registered trademark of
the National Values Center, Inc.
Credits and permissions can be found on the Permissions

page (p. 635), which constitutes an extension of the copy-
right page.
CONTENTS
Introduction ....................................................................................... vi
Chapter
I Speak No Evil .......................................................... 1
II A Bit of a Booby ...................................................... 6
III The Handsome Duckling ....................................... 12
IV The Krinsh ............................................................. 17
V Zen in the Art of Sex and Violence ....................... 30
VI Sex, Bliss, and Rock ‘n’ Roll ................................. 46
VII The Sixth Beatle .................................................... 51
VIII Been Here, Done That, What Now? ...................... 63
IX Scorpion-Man ........................................................ 70
X Even If It Happened.... ........................................... 76
XI Mo’ Chin-Ups ........................................................ 80
XII Thai Surprise .......................................................... 86
XIII Battlefield Teegeeack ............................................ 89
XIV Werner’s Uncertainty Principle ............................. 98
XV Cockroach Yoga .................................................. 102
XVI A Wild and Crazy Wisdom Guy .......................... 108
XVII Sixty Minutes ....................................................... 125
XVIII The Mango Kid .................................................... 130
XIX Da Avatar, Da Bomb, Da Bum ............................ 138
XX Sometimes I Feel Like a God ............................... 156
XXI Norman Einstein .................................................. 176
XXII Hello, Dalai! ........................................................ 244
iv
v STRIPPING THE GURUS
XXIII Up the Asana ........................................................ 261

XXIV Sodomy and Gomorrah ........................................ 265
XXV Of Cabbages and Nature Sprites .......................... 282
XXVI ... To a Nunnery ................................................... 298
XXVII Gurus and Prisoners ............................................. 379
XXVIII Spiritual Choices .................................................. 425
XXIX After the Ordeal ................................................... 444
XXX Make It Better ...................................................... 504
Essential Online Resources ............................................................ 537

Appendix: Wilber and Bohm ......................................................... 540
Bibliography .................................................................................. 568
Permissions .................................................................................... 635
About the Author ........................................................................... 637
INTRODUCTION
ONE OF MY DEAR, late mother’s most memorable expressions, in at-

tempting to get her children to behave, was simply: “Be sure your sins
will find you out.”
It may take a minute, an hour, a day, a year, ten years or more,
but eventually the details of one’s behaviors are likely to surface.
Whether one’s public face is that of a saint or a sinner, ultimately “the
truth will out.”
This book, then, concerns the alleged sins which have been con-
cealed behind the polished façades of too many of our world’s
“saintly and sagely” spiritual leaders and their associated communi-
ties, with a marked focus on North America over the past century.
Why, though, would anyone write such a book as this? Why not
just “focus on the good,” and work on one’s own self-transformation
instead?
First of all, one hopes to save others from the sorrow inherent in
throwing their lives away in following these figures. Even the most
elementary bodhisattva vow, for the liberation of others from suffer-
ing, would leave one with no moral choice but to do one’s part in that.
Likewise, even the most basic understanding as to the nature of “idiot
compassion” would preclude one from ignoring these reported prob-
lems just to be “nice” or avoid offending others.
As a former follower of Carlos Castaneda eloquently put it, in re-
lating the depressing and disillusioning story of her experiences with
him, amid her own “haunting dreams of suicide”:
vi
vii STRIPPING THE GURUS
[I]f some reader, somewhere, takes a moment’s pause and

halts before handing over his or her free will to another, it will
all have counted for something (Wallace, 2003).
Or, as Margery Wakefield (1991) expressed her own opinion:
As trite as it may sound, if I can prevent even one other per-

son, especially a young person, from having to live through the
nightmare of Scientology—then I will feel satisfied.
Second, I personally spent the worst nine months of my life at

one of Paramahansa Yogananda’s approved southern California ash-
rams (i.e., hermitages/monasteries), and have still not recovered fully
from that awful experience. I thus consider this as part of my own
healing process. That is, it is part of my dealing with the after-effects
of the “wisdom” meted out in that environment by its loyal, “God-
inspired” participants.
Third, with my own background in Eastern philosophy, we may
hope to do all this without misrepresenting the metaphysical ideas
involved. With or without that, though, it is not the validity of the
theoretical ideas of each path which are, in general, of concern here.
Rather, of far greater interest are the ways in which the leaders es-
pousing those ideas have applied them in practice, frequently to the
reported detriment of their followers.
Fourth, the mapping of reported ashram behaviors to psycholo-
gist Philip Zimbardo’s classic prison study, as presented in the “Gurus
and Prisoners” chapter, yields significant insights into the origins and
pervasiveness of the alleged problems cataloged herein.
Fifth, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, if we eliminate everything
which is impossible, then what is left, however improbable it may
appear, must be the case. Becoming aware of the reported problems
with our world’s “sages” and their admirers, then, eliminates many
pleasant but “impossible” hopes one may have with regard to the na-
ture of spirituality and religion.
This book will not likely change the mind of any loyal disciple
of any of the spiritual figures and paths specifically addressed herein.
Indeed, no amount of evidence of alleged abuse or hypocrisy on the
part of those leaders could do so, for followers who are convinced
that they have found “God in the flesh,” in their spiritual hero.
INTRODUCTION viii
This text may, however, touch some of those devotees who are
already halfway to realizing what is going on around them. And more
importantly, in quantitative good, it may give a “heads up” to persons
who would otherwise be suckered in by the claims of any particular
“God-realized being”—as I myself was fooled, once upon a time. And
thus, it may prevent them from becoming involved with the relevant
organization(s) in the first place.
Ultimately, the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” ap-
proach to life simply allows the relevant problems to continue. No
one should ever turn a blind eye to secular crimes of forgery, incest,
rape or the like. Much less should those same crimes be so readily
excused or forgiven when they are alleged to occur in spiritual con-
texts. That is so particularly when they are claimed to be perpetrated
by leaders and followers insisting that they have “God on their side,”
and that any resistance to their reported blunders or rumored power-
tripping abuses equates to being influenced by Maya/Satan.
To say nothing in the face of evil, after all, is to implicitly con-
done it. Or equally, as the saying goes, “For evil to triumph in this
world, it is only necessary for good people to do nothing.”
In the words of Albert Einstein:
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the peo-

ple who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do any-
thing about it.
The alert reader will further note that, aside from my own rela-
tively non-scandalous (but still highly traumatic) personal experiences
at Hidden Valley, all of the allegations made herein—none of which,
to my knowledge, except where explicitly noted, have been proved in
any court of law—have already been put into print elsewhere in
books and magazine articles. In all of those cases, I am relying in
good faith on the validity of the extant, published research of the
relevant journalists and ex-disciples. I have made every effort to pre-
sent that existing reported data without putting any additional “spin”
on it, via juxtapositions or otherwise. After all, the in-print (alleged)
realities, in every case, are jaw-dropping enough that no innuendo or
taking-out-of-context would have ever been required in order to make
our world’s “god-men” look foolish.
ix STRIPPING THE GURUS
As the Dalai Lama (1999) expressed his own opinion, regarding

the value of such investigative journalism:
I respect and appreciate the media’s interference.... It is appro-

priate ... to have journalists ... snooping around and exposing
wrongdoing where they find it. We need to know when this or
that renowned individual hides a very different aspect behind a
pleasant exterior.
As to the quantity of reported “sins” covered non-complimentari-

ly herein, please appreciate that I myself am, in general, in no way
anti-drug, anti-alcohol, anti-dildo, anti-secret-passageway-to-the-
women’s-dormitory, anti-whorehouse or anti-orgy, etc. It is simply
obvious, by now, that any of those, when put into the hands of “god-
men” who have carved islands of absolute power for themselves in
the world, only make an already dangerous situation much worse.
Of course, all such protests to the contrary, it is the very nature
of the gathering and publicizing of information such as this that one
will be regarded as being either puritanical or shadow-projecting for
doing so. Why else, after all, would anyone object to guru-disciple
sex, etc., in situations where the “non-divine” party too often is a psy-
chological child in the relationship, unable to say “No”?
The guideline that “all’s fair among consenting adults so long as
no one gets hurt” is reasonable enough. So then simply ask yourself
as you read this book: In how many, if any, of the environments cov-
ered here has no one “gotten hurt”?
Finally, with regard to the use of humor herein, the late Christo-
pher Reeve put it appropriately: “When things are really bad, you
have to laugh.”
April, 2005 Geoffrey D. Falk

Toronto, Ontario www.geoffreyfalk.com
CHAPTER I
SPEAK NO EVIL
The wicked are wicked no doubt, and they go astray, and they
fall, and they come by their desserts. But who can tell the mis-
chief that the very virtuous do?
—William Makepeace Thackeray
ONE WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE that our world’s recognized saints and
sages have the best interests of everyone at heart in their thoughts and
actions.
One would also like to believe that the same “divinely loving”
and enlightened figures would never distort truth to suit their own
purposes, and would never use their power to take advantage (sexu-
ally or otherwise) of their followers. They would, that is, be free of
the deep psychological quirks, prejudices, hypocrisy and violence
which affect mere mortals.
One would further hope that the best of our world’s sages would
be able to distinguish between valid mystical perceptions and mere
hallucinations, and that the miracles and healings which they have
claimed to have effected have all actually occurred.
Sadly, none of those hopes stand up to even the most basic ra-
tional scrutiny.
Thus, it has come to be that you are holding in your hands an ex-
tremely evil book.
1
2 STRIPPING THE GURUS
It is so, simply because it attempts to expose, to a wider audi-

ence, the worst of the alleged abuses which various “god-men” have
reportedly visited upon their followers, and on the world at large, over
the past century or more.
In tracing that line of degeneracy more or less chronologically,
from the introduction of Eastern philosophy into Western thought and
action up to the present day, we will meet the following “saints and
sages”:
• Ramakrishna, whose worship of the Divine Mother did not

exclude comparable ritual veneration for his own penis, or an
equal interest in fondling the genitals of his male followers
• The brothel-visiting Vivekananda, Ramakrishna’s chief dis-
ciple, who first brought yoga to America via the 1893
World’s Fair, and thus paved the way into the West for all
following Eastern teachers
• Jiddu Krishnamurti, the Theosophical Society’s eagerly an-
ticipated “World Teacher,” who later broke from that organi-
zation, fully repudiating it, and then embarked on a quarter-
century affair with a woman whom he believed to be the rein-
carnation of his late mother
• Japanese Zen masters and scholars, whose support of the use
of Zen principles in the training of the Japanese military dur-
ing times of war, and reported physical abuse of disciples in
times of peace, will give us serious pause
• Satchidananda, the “Woodstock Swami,” who repudiated
drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, but reportedly retained a fondness for
sex with his female disciples
• The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, famed for his involvement with
the Beatles, his alleged failed attempt at seducing Mia Far-
row, and his efforts at teaching the “real magic” of levitation
to the late magician Doug Henning, among others
• Swami Rama, renowned for his purported demonstration of
parapsychological abilities under Elmer and Alyce Green in
the 1970s, as another “holy celibate” who apparently couldn’t
keep his robes on
SPEAK NO EVIL 3
• Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who reportedly once admitted,

while sniffing laughing gas to get high, that he was “so re-
lieved to not have to pretend to be enlightened any more”
• Satya Sai Baba, whose claimed “miracles” have included
raising people from the dead, producing streams of “sacred
ash” from his hands—a feat easily replicated by secular ma-
gicians—and allegedly molesting hundreds of young boys
• Sri Chinmoy, the “stunt man of the spiritual world,” whose
disciples to this day periodically canvass campuses across
North America with flyers touting the purported benefits of
meditation under his guidance
• Buddhist monks in Thailand, who have been known to
proudly exhibit expensive collections of antique cars, and to
don disguises, sneak out to local karaoke bars, and be caught
with pornography, alcohol, sexual paraphernalia, and more
than one woman at a time
• Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, whose FBI files con-
tained the observation, “appears mental”
• Werner Erhard, originator of est group training, who brought
us the phrase, “Thank you for sharing”
• Yogi Bhajan, the claimed “only living master of white tantric
yoga in the world”
• Chögyam Trungpa, who brought Tibetan Buddhism to Amer-
ica, and proceeded to drink himself into an early grave
• Swami Muktananda, whose ashram living quarters in India
reportedly contained a well-used secret passageway to the ad-
jacent young girls’ dormitory
• Muktananda’s name-changing disciple Adi Da (Da Free John,
Da Love-Ananda, etc.), whose “crazy wisdom” exploits pro-
pelled him to exile in Fiji in the mid-’80s, following allega-
tions of sexual abuse
• Andrew Cohen, whose own Jewish mother has regarded his
closed authoritarian spiritual community as embodying a
“fascist mind-set,” with its members behaving like “Gestapo
agents.” (Such closed communities are of homogeneous be-
liefs, have little exchange of ideas with the outside world, and
possess no option of questioning the leader while still remain-
ing a member in good standing. Further, to leave the commu-
nity is typically claimed to be to throw away one’s only
“chance in this lifetime for enlightenment” [van der Braak,
2003].) She has further rejected Cohen’s claims of enlight-
enment, comparing him instead to the “cult” leaders Jim
Jones and David Koresh, and even to Adolf Hitler
• Ken Wilber, the “Einstein of consciousness studies,” who has
at times spoken with unbridled enthusiasm for the effects of
discipline under both Adi Da and Cohen. The pandit Wilber
and his approved community of thinkers, however, have al-
ready exhibited numerous troubling characteristics, unbecom-
ing of any alleged sagely genius
• Yogi Amrit Desai, formerly of the Kripalu yoga center,
whose followers there, when news of the claimed sexual ac-
tivities between the married Desai and his devotees surfaced,
displayed unique discrimination in reportedly forcing him to
leave the center he himself had founded
• Assorted sexually active Roman Catholic priests—pedophile,
ephebophile and otherwise
• The Findhorn community in Scotland, which actually func-
tions without a guru-figure, arguably doing more good than
harm for exactly that reason
• Paramahansa Yogananda, author of the spiritual classic Auto-
biography of a Yogi, whose troubled ashrams the present au-
thor can speak of from first-hand experience
With only a few exceptions, the above figures have taught au-
thentic Eastern philosophy of one variety or another. They have fur-
ther been widely recognized and duly advertised as possessing high
degrees of spiritual realization. Indeed, one can easily find devoted
followers singing the praises of each of these individuals and paths, in
books and sanctioned websites. (Both the Rick A. Ross Institute at
www.rickross.com and Steven Hassan’s www.freedomofmind.com
site have many such links to “official” websites.) To find the reported
“dirt” on each of them, however, requires a fair bit more effort. Nev-
SPEAK NO EVIL 5
ertheless, it is those alleged worst aspects, not the often-advertised

best, which leave formerly loyal disciples picking up the pieces of
their shattered lives, and wondering aloud how they could ever have
been so blind as to buy into the “perfect master’s” propaganda in the
first place.
This is, therefore, a very “dirty” book. For, it presents not only
the representative (and, after a while, completely unbelievable) claims
to perfection or God-realization of each of the forty or so major and
minor “authentic” spiritual figures considered herein, but also the al-
leged shortcomings of each, as those have affected their followers.
Obviously, then, to cover all of that in a single text requires that only
the most grandiose of the claims, and the worst of the foibles and al-
leged abuses, of each “sage” be mentioned herein.
Unless one enjoys seeing other people suffer—or effecting or re-
living one’s own process of disillusionment—however, this is not
going to be pretty. For, in probing this lineage, we will find legions of
alleged emotional, physical and sexual abuses perpetrated “in the
name of God,” by persons neither impotent nor omnipotent, yet
claiming to be “one with God.”
By the end of all this unpleasantness, then, at least one thing will
undoubtedly be clear. That is, that with “gods” like these, we do not
need devils. For, every evil which one might otherwise ascribe to Sa-
tan or Maya has allegedly been perpetrated by one or another “God-
realized avatar” or ostensibly “perfected being.”
Of course, the forthcoming shocking disclosures will predictably
result in a good amount of “wailing and gnashing of teeth” among
obedient followers. Indeed, that is to be expected particularly among
loyal adherents to each path for whom the “perfection” and infallibil-
ity of their own leader is not open to questioning, even if they may
allow that none of the other “sagely” individuals considered herein
are what they claim to be. (Part of the value of grouping all of these
pretenses and alleged abuses together in a single book is exactly that
one can see that the “unique” claims of one’s own path are also being
made, equally untenably, by numerous other paths.) Nevertheless, if
we are really interested in truth, we should still welcome having the
hypocrisies and (alleged) abusive evils of persons in positions of
spiritual authority be laid bare to the world. Exposing them to the
public eye, after all, is the only way to get them to stop.
Thus, “onward and evil-ward.”
CHAPTER II
A BIT OF A BOOBY
(SRI RAMAKRISHNA)
[Ramakrishna] is a figure of recent history and his life and

teachings have not yet been obscured by loving legends and
doubtful myths (in Ramakrishna, 2003).
Ramakrishna ... gained recognition from his devotees and ad-

mirers that he was [an incarnation of] Christ.... When [Mahen-
dra Nath Gupta, a prominent disciple] told his Master that he
was the same person as Jesus and Chaitanya, Ramakrishna af-
firmed enthusiastically: “Same! Same! Certainly the same per-
son” (Sil, 1998).
I am an avatar. I am God in human form (Ramakrishna, in

[Nityatmananda, 1967]).
THE STORY OF YOGA and yogis in the West—and of their correspond-

ing alleged abuses of power, most often reportedly for sexual pur-
poses—really begins with Swami Vivekananda’s lectures at the Chi-
cago World’s Fair in 1893.
Vivekananda’s story, however, begins with his own guru, Sri
Ramakrishna, the latter having been born in India in 1836. (“Sri” is an
East Indian title of respect, akin to the English “Sir.”) Thus, it is to the
latter that we shall first turn our attention.
6
A BIT OF A BOOBY 7
As a child, the boy Ramakrishna—who later claimed to be the

incarnation of both Krishna and Rama—“loved to dress up and act
like a girl” (Sil, 1997). He was, indeed, aided in that activity by rela-
tives who bought him feminine outfits and gold ornaments, to suit his
own relatively feminine body and psyche.
One can very well see from the extant photograph of Rama-
krishna [e.g., online at Ramakrishna (2003)] he possessed quite
well-formed and firm breasts—most possibly a case of gyne-
comastia....
Ramakrishna could also be described, in the jargon of
modern medical psychology, as a “she male,” that is, a male
who, despite his male genitalia, possesses a female psyche and
breasts resembling those of a woman....
[Saradananda] writes, apparently on the basis of the Mas-
ter’s testimony, that he used to bleed every month from the re-
gion of his pubic hair ... and the bleeding continued for three
days just like the menstrual period of women (Sil, 1998).
Nor was that the extent of the great sage’s appreciation for the
microcosmic aspects of the feminine principle:
Once he sat after a midday siesta with his loin cloth dishev-
eled. He then remarked that he was sitting like a woman about
to suckle her baby. In fact, he used to suckle his young beloved
[male] disciple Rakhal Ghosh....
He ... exhibited his frankly erotic behavior toward his
male devotees and disciples.... He often posed as their girl-
friend or mother and always touched or caressed them lovingly
(Sil, 1998).
Indeed, after having met his foremost disciple, Vivekananda, for

the first time, in the throes of an “agonizing desire” to see the young
man again, Ramakrishna confessed:
I ran to the northern quarter of the garden, a rather unfre-

quented place, and there cried at the top of my voice, “O my
darling, come back to me! I can’t live without seeing you!” Af-
ter some time, I felt better. This state of things continued for
six months. There were other boys who also came here; I felt
greatly drawn towards some of them but nothing like the way I
was attracted toward [Vivekananda] (Disciples, 1979; italics
added).
Ramakrishna went on to describe his favorite disciple variously

as a “huge red-eyed carp,” “a very large pot,” “a big bamboo with
holes” and a “male pigeon.”
In later days, the prematurely impotent, married guru once went
into samadhi (i.e., mystical ecstasy, generally involving a loss of
awareness of the body) after having mounted the young Vivekan-
anda’s back.
As to what excuse the great guru might have given for such
mounting had it not sent him vaulting into ecstatic perception of God,
one can only guess.
[W]e cannot ignore [Ramakrishna’s] obsession with the anus

and shit in his conversations. Even the experience of his high-
est realization that there exists within the individual self the
Paramatman, the repository of all knowledge, was derived
from his beholding a grasshopper with a thin sticklike object
inserted in its anus!....
His ecstasy [i.e., as trance] was induced by touching his
favorite young [male] devotees. He developed a few strategies
for touching or petting the body (occasionally the penis, as was
the case with Vijaykrishna Goswami, whose cock he calmed
by his “touch”) of devotees (Sil, 1998).
Of course, none of Ramakrishna’s documented homoerotic be-

haviors in the above regards would equate to him having been a prac-
ticing homosexual. They equally, however, cannot be unrelated to his
own view of the female body as being nothing more than “such things
as blood, flesh, fat, entrails, worms, piss, shit, and the like” (in
Nikhilananda, 1984). Indeed, the “incarnation of the Divine Mother”
himself divulged:
I am terribly scared of women.... I see them as a tigress coming

to devour me. Besides, I see large pores [cf. vagina symbols]
in their limbs. I find all of them as ogres....
A BIT OF A BOOBY 9
If my body is touched by a woman I feel sick.... The

touched part aches as if stung by a horned catfish (in Nikhila-
nanda, 1984).
Even the mere sight of a woman could reportedly so negatively

excite Ramakrishna as to prompt him to
either run to the temple or invoke the strategy of escape by get-

ting into samadhi. His attraction for young boys that may be
considered as muted pedophilia is often associated with aging
impotent males....
Ramakrishna’s contempt for women was basically a mi-
sogynist attitude of an insecure male, who thought of himself
as a woman in order to fight his innate fear of the female (Sil,
1998).
On other occasions, the mention of any object which Rama-

krishna did not desire (e.g., hemp, wine) would send him fleeing into
samadhi; as could strong emotion (e.g., anger) on the sage’s part. At
his cousin’s suggestion that those odd behaviors might have been
psychologically based, Ramakrishna “responded by almost jumping
into the river in order to end it all” (in Sil, 1998).
***
With those various factors acting, it should not surprise that Rama-
krishna’s own spiritual discipline took several odd turns.
During his ascetic practices, Ramakrishna exhibited remark-

able bodily changes. While worshiping Rama as his devotee
Hanuman, the monkey chieftain of the Ramayana, his move-
ments resembled those of a monkey.... [Ramakrishna was also
an accomplished childhood actor.] In his biography of Rama-
krishna, novelist Christopher Isherwood paraphrased the
saint’s own description of his strange behavior: “I didn’t do
this of my own accord; it happened of itself. And the most
marvelous thing was—the lower end of my spine lengthened,
nearly an inch! Later, when I stopped practicing this kind of
devotion, it gradually went back to its normal size” (Murphy,
1992).
During the days of my [“holy”] madness [as priest of the Kali

temple in Dakshineswar] I used to worship my own penis as
the Shiva linga.... Workshop of a live linga. I even decorated it
with a pearl (in Nikhilananda, 1984).
Nor was the sage’s manner of worship confined to his own geni-
talia:
[Ramakrishna] considered swear words [to be] as meaningful

as the Vedas and the Puranas and was particularly fond of per-
forming japa (ritual counting of rosary) by muttering the word
“cunt” (Sil, 1998).
Indeed, as the claimed avatar himself told his devotees:
The moment I utter the word “cunt” I behold the cosmic va-
gina ... and I sink into it (in Sil, 1998).
That is actually not quite as odd as it might initially seem, for

“cunt” itself derives from Kunda or Cunti—names for Kali, the Hindu
Divine Mother goddess, beloved of Ramakrishna.
It is still plenty odd, though.
In any case, in 1861 the recently wedded Ramakrishna began
tantric (sexual) yoga practice with a female teacher, Yogeshwari. (His
marriage was actually to a five-year-old child bride, chosen by the
twenty-three-year-old yogi himself, and then left with her parents to
mature.) Rituals performed by the eager student during that sadhana
(i.e., spiritual practice/discipline) included eating the culinary left-
overs from the meals of dogs and jackals. Also, consuming a “fish
and human meat preparation in a human skull” (Sil, 1998). Attempts
to have him participate in the ritual sex with a consort which is an
essential component of tantra, however, were less successful. Indeed,
they ended with the sage himself falling safely into trance, and later
simply witnessing other practitioners having ritual intercourse.
Comparably, upon his wife’s coming of age, Ramakrishna tried
but failed to make love to her, instead involuntarily plunging into a
“premature superconsciousness.” (Their marriage was actually, it ap-
pears, never consummated.) That, however, did not discourage the
young woman from staking her own spiritual claims:
A BIT OF A BOOBY 11
[W]hile regarding her husband as God, Sarada came to be con-

vinced that as his wedded wife she must also be divine. Fol-
lowing her husband’s claim that she was actually Shiva’s wife,
Sarada later claimed: “I am Bhagavati, the Divine Mother of
the Universe” (Sil, 1998).
Such was evidently the compensation for her being confined to

the kitchen for days at a time by her husband, cooking, not even being
allowed to relieve herself in the latrine.
***
[Ramakrishna was] one of the truly great saints of nineteenth-

century India (Feuerstein, 1992).
In a demonstration of the high regard with which every loyal disciple

holds his or her guru, Vivekananda himself declared that Rama-
krishna was “the greatest of all avatars” (Sil, 1997). That evaluation,
however, was not shared by everyone who knew the great sage:
Hriday, the Master’s nephew and companion, actually regard-

ed him [as] a moron (Sil, 1998).
The venerated guru later formed the same opinion of his own
earthly mother.
In any case, as part of his alleged avatarhood, Ramakrishna was
christened with the title “Paramahansa,” meaning “Supreme Swan.”
The appellation itself signifies the highest spiritual attainment and
discrimination, by analogy with the swan which, it is claimed, is able
to extract only the milk from a mixture of milk and water (presuma-
bly by curdling it).
In mid-1885, Ramakrishna was diagnosed with throat cancer. He
died in 1886, leaving several thousand disciples (Satchidananda,
1977). As expected, Vivekananda took over leadership of those devo-
tees.
After all that, Sil (1998) gives his summary evaluation of “the
incarnation [of God or the Divine Mother] for the modern age,” con-
cluding that, the swooning Ramakrishna’s status as a monumental
cultural icon notwithstanding, he was nevertheless “a bit of a baby
and a bit of a booby.”
CHAPTER III
THE HANDSOME
DUCKLING
(SWAMI VIVEKANANDA)
[Vivekananda] is seen not just as a patriot-prophet of resurgent

India but much more—an incarnation of Shiva, Buddha and
Jesus (Sil, 1997).
Perfect from his birth, [Vivekananda] did not need spiritual

disciplines for his own liberation. Whatever disciplines he
practiced were for the purpose of removing the veil that con-
cealed, for the time being, his true divine nature and mission in
the world. Even before his birth, the Lord had chosen him as
His instrument to help Him in the spiritual redemption of hu-
manity (Nikhilananda, 1996).
BORN IN 1863 IN CALCUTTA, Vivekananda began meditating at age

seven, and claimed to have first experienced samadhi when eight
years old.
He regarded himself as a brahmachari, a celibate student of

the Hindu tradition, who worked hard, prized ascetic disci-
plines, held holy things in reverence, and enjoyed clean words,
thoughts, and acts (Nikhilananda, 1996).
12
THE HANDSOME DUCKLING 13
A handsome and muscular, albeit somewhat stout and bulldog-

jawed youth, he first met his guru, Ramakrishna, in 1881 at age eight-
een. As the favorite and foremost disciple of that “Supreme Swan,”
the young “Duckling,” Vivekananda,
was constantly flattered and petted by his frankly enchanted

homoerotic mentor [i.e., Ramakrishna], fed adoringly by him,
made to sing songs on a fairly regular basis for the Master’s
mystical merriment, and told by the older man that he was a ...
realized individual through his meditations ... [an] eternally re-
alized person ... free from the lure of ... woman and wealth
(Sil, 1997).
Vivekanandaji took his monastic vows in 1886, shortly before

his guru’s death, thereby becoming a swami. (The suffix “ji” is added
to East Indian names and titles to show respect.) “Swami” itself—
meaning “to be master of one’s self”—is simply the name of the mo-
nastic order established by Shankara in the thirteenth century. The
adoption of that honorific entails taking formal vows of celibacy and
poverty.
Interestingly, in later years, Vivekananda actually claimed to be
the reincarnation of Shankara (Sil, 1997).
In any case, following a dozen years of increasing devotion to
his dearly departed guru, Vivekananda came to America at age thirty.
There, he represented Hinduism to American men and women at the
1893 Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago.
A total stranger to the world of extroverted, educated, and af-

fluent women, he was charmed by their generosity, kindness,
and frankly unqualified admiration for and obsession with a
handsome, young, witty, and somewhat enchantingly naïve
virgin male from a distant land (Sil, 1997).
The earlier-celebrated purity and enjoyment of “clean acts,” and

“freedom from the lure of women” guaranteed to Vivekananda by
Ramakrishna, would nevertheless at first glance appear to have been
somewhat incomplete. For, the former once admitted that, following
the death of his father in 1884,
he visited brothels and consumed alcoholic beverages in the

company of his friends (Sil, 1997).
Thankfully for his legacy, though, Vivekananda was not actually

partaking of the various ladies’ delights in those houses. Rather, by
his own testimony, he was simply dragged there once by his friends,
who hoped to cheer him up after his father’s death. He, however, after
a few drinks, began lecturing to them about what might become of
them in their afterlives for such debauchery. He was subsequently
kicked out by his friends for being that “wet blanket,” and stumbled
home alone, thoroughly drunk (Sil, 2004).
So it was just a few drinks too many. In a whorehouse. Nothing
unexpected from a savior “chosen by God as His instrument to help
Him” in the salvation of humanity.
Either way, though, “if you keep on playing with fire” you’re go-
ing to get burned, as Vivekananda himself observed:
Once in me rose the feeling of lust. I got so disgusted with my-

self that I sat on a pot of burning tinders, and it took a long
time for the wound to heal (in Sil, 1997).
***
[I]t is my ambition to conquer the world by Hindu thought—to

see Hindus from the North Pole to the South Pole (Vivekan-
anda, in [Sil, 1997]).
It was not long after that announcement that Vivekananda was

proudly claiming to have “helped on the tide of Vedanta which is
flooding the world.” He was likewise soon predicting that “before ten
years elapse a vast majority of the English people will be Vedantic”
(in Sil, 1997).
The enthusiastic young monk’s hopes of effecting global change,
further, were not limited to a spiritual revolution, of “Hindus ‘round
the world.” Rather, among his other vast dreams were those of a so-
cially progressive, economically sovereign and politically stable India
(Sil, 1997).
The realization of those goals, however, was to come up against
certain concrete realities not anticipated by the swami, including the
THE HANDSOME DUCKLING 15
need to think ahead in manifesting one’s ideas. Indeed, Vivekananda

was, it seems, explicitly opposed to such an approach:
Plans! Plans! That is why you Western people can never create
a religion! If any of you ever did, it was only a few Catholic
saints who had no plans. Religion was never, never preached
by planners! (in Nikhilananda, 1996).
Not surprisingly, then, given this antipathy, before the end of

1897 Vivekananda was already down-sizing his goals:
I have roused a good many of our people, and that was all I
wanted (in Nikhilananda, 1996).
Further, as Chelishev (1987) observed with regard to the social

improvements advocated by the naïve monk:
Vivekananda approached the solution of the problem of social

inequality from the position of Utopian Socialism, placing
hopes on the good will and magnanimity of the propertied
classes.
Understandably, within a year the swami had realized the futility

of that approach:
I have given up at present my plan for the education of the

masses (in Sil, 1997).
It will come by degrees. What I now want is a band of fiery

missionaries. We must have a College in Madras to teach com-
parative religions ... we must have a press, and papers printed
in English and in the vernaculars (Vivekananda, 1947).
As one frustrated devotee finally put it:
Swami had good ideas—plenty—but he carried nothing out....

He only talked (in Sil, 1997).
***
Vivekananda claimed to have experienced, in 1898, a vision of Shiva

Himself. In that ecstasy, he “had been granted the grace of Amarnath,
the Lord of Immortality, not to die until he himself willed it” (Nikhil-
ananda, 1996).
The chain-smoking, diabetic sage, apparently “going gentle into
that dark night,” nevertheless passed away only a few years later, in
1902, after years of declining health. Reaching only an unripe age of
thirty-nine, he “thus fulfill[ed] his own prophecy: ‘I shall not live to
be forty years old’” (Nikhilananda, 1996).
Of course, there are prophecies, and then there are earlier
prophecies:
Vivekananda declared solemnly: “This time I will give hun-

dred years to my body.... This time I have to perform many
difficult tasks.... In this life I shall demonstrate my powers
much more than I did in my past life” (Sil, 1997).
***
In spite of those many reversals, Vivekananda foresaw great and last-

ing effects on the world for his teachings:
The spiritual ideals emanating from the Belur Math [one of

Vivekananda’s monasteries/universities], he once said to Miss
MacLeod, would influence the thought-currents of the world
for 1100 years....
“All these visions are rising before me”—these were his
very words (Nikhilananda, 1996).
The Vedanta Society which preserves Vivekananda’s brand of

Hinduism has a current membership of only around 22,000 individu-
als, and a dozen centers worldwide. It would thus not likely qualify as
any large part of the “global spiritual renaissance” grandly and gran-
diosely envisioned by the swami. The better part of Vivekananda’s
actual legacy, then, beyond mere organizational PR, may consist sim-
ply in his having paved the way for the other Eastern teachers who
followed him into America in the succeeding century.
Teachers such as....
CHAPTER IV
THE KRINSH
(JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI)
The messiah, or World Teacher, was made to correspond with

the traditional Hindu figure of the Avatar, a deific person sent
to the world at certain crucial times to watch over the dawn of
a new religious era (Vernon, 2001).
No one used that term [i.e., “World Teacher”] in my child-

hood. As I could not pronounce his name, Krishnamurti, he
was known to me always, as Krinsh (Sloss, 2000).
Madame B
Down in Adyar
Liked the Masters a lot ...
But the Krinsh,
Who lived out in Ojai,
Did NOT!
JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI WAS DISCOVERED as a teenage boy by Charles

Leadbeater of the Theosophical Society, on a beach in Madras, India,
in 1909.
The Theosophical Society itself had been founded in New York
City by the east-European “seer” Madame Helena P. Blavatsky
17
(HPB), in 1875. Its membership soon numbered over 100,000; an

Asian headquarters was established in Adyar, India, in 1882.
The Theosophical Society ... was at first enormously success-

ful and attracted converts of the intellectual stature of the in-
ventor Thomas Edison and Darwin’s friend and collaborator
Alfred Russel Wallace (Storr, 1996).
No less an authority than [Zen scholar] D. T. Suzuki was pre-

pared to say that [Blavatsky’s] explication of Buddhist teach-
ings in The Voice of Silence ... testified to an initiation into
“the deeper side of Mahayana doctrine” (Oldmeadow, 2004).
Perhaps. And yet—
W. E. Coleman has shown that [Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled]

comprises a sustained and frequent plagiarism of about one
hundred contemporary texts, chiefly relating to ancient and ex-
otic religions, demonology, Freemasonry and the case for
spiritualism....
[The Secret Doctrine] betrayed her plagiarism again but
now her sources were mainly contemporary works on Hindu-
ism and modern science (Goodrick-Clarke, 2004).
Interestingly, when Blavatsky and her co-founder, Colonel

Henry Olcott, sailed to India in 1879, the man whom they left in
charge of the Theosophical Society in America was one Abner Dou-
bleday, the inventor of baseball (Fields, 1992).
Blavatsky herself taught the existence of a hierarchy of “As-
cended Masters,” included among them one Lord Maitreya, the World
Teacher whose incarnations had allegedly included both Krishna and
Jesus. Those same Masters, however, were modeled on real figures
from public life, e.g., on individuals involved in East Indian political
reform (Vernon, 2001). They were fraudulently contacted in other
ways as well:
[Blavatsky’s housekeeper, Emma Cutting, demonstrated] how

she and HPB had made a doll together, which they ... manipu-
lated on a long bamboo pole in semi-darkness to provide the
Master’s alleged apparitions. Emma had also dropped “precipi-
THE KRINSH 19
tated” letters on to Theosophical heads from holes in the ceil-

ing, while her husband had made sliding panels and hidden en-
trances into the shrine room [adjoining HPB’s bedroom] to fa-
cilitate Blavatsky’s comings and goings and make possible the
substitution of all the brooches, dishes and other objects that
she used in her demonstrations [i.e., as purported materializa-
tions or “apports”]....
The Russian journalist V. S. Solovieff claimed to have
caught [Blavatsky] red-handed with the silver bells which pro-
duced astral music [in séances].... Blavatsky confessed to So-
lovieff quite bluntly that the phenomena were fraudulent, add-
ing that one must deceive men in order to rule them
(Washington, 1995).
Blavatsky died in 1891. Prior to that passing, however, Lead-

beater had already begun claiming to channel messages himself, from
Blavatsky’s fabricated “Masters.”
The famously clairvoyant Leadbeater, further, had before (and
after) been accused of indecent behavior toward a series of adolescent
males:
One of Leadbeater’s favorite boys [accused him] of secretly

teaching boys to masturbate under cover of occult training, and
insinuat[ed] that masturbation was only the prelude to the
gratifying of homosexual lust (Washington, 1995).
In any case, the young “Krishna on the Beach” was no typical

teenager, in need of such mundane lessons, as the clairvoyant well
noted. Indeed, upon examining his aura, Leadbeater found Krishna-
murti to be a highly refined soul, apparently completely free of self-
ishness, i.e., ego.
Krishnamurti was soon thereafter declared by Leadbeater to be
the current “vehicle” for Lord Maitreya, and schooled accordingly
within the Theosophical ranks. (An American boy had earlier been
advanced for the same position by Leadbeater, but the latter appears
to have “changed his mind” in that regard. Later, Leadbeater was to
propose yet another East Indian youth for the title of World Teacher.
That boy, Rajagopal, went on to manage Krishnamurti’s financial
affairs, while his wife handled Jiddu’s other affairs, as we shall see.)
The brothers [i.e., Krishnamurti and his younger sibling] no

doubt found Leadbeater’s swings of temperament confusing.
One moment they would be adored, pampered, idolized, and
the next scolded for breaching some piece of esoteric etiquette
they did not understand (Vernon, 2001).
Throughout this book, we shall see many examples of students

and disciples being placed in comparable situations by their teachers
and guru-figures. In such psychological binds, persons for whom it is
vitally important to earn the approval of their “master” are rather un-
able to discern how to gain that reward, with often-tragic results.
There are, indeed, two possible extreme reactions to such intermittent
reward/punishment, where one cannot ascertain the conditions by
which the reward will be earned or the punishment given. That is, one
can either simply drop all of one’s reactions and live in “choiceless
awareness” of the moment; or, more often, evolve that impossibility
of “guessing right” into neuroses, violence or extreme depression.
Indeed, relevant experiments have been done by students of Pav-
lov himself (Winn, 2000), wherein dogs were first taught, via reward
and punishment, to distinguish between circles and ellipses. Then, the
circles were gradually flattened, and the ellipses made rounder, until
the experimental subjects could no longer distinguish between them.
The dogs were thus unable to give the “correct response” to earn a
corresponding prize, instead being rewarded and punished “ran-
domly.” The effect on the animals was that initially happy and excit-
able dogs became violent, biting their experimenters. Other previ-
ously “laid back, carefree” animals, by contrast, became lethargic, not
caring about anything.
At any rate, even prior to being discovered by Leadbeater, while
still in India’s public school system, Krishnamurti’s own education
had been a traumatic experience:
Never one to endear himself to schoolmasters, Krishna was

punished brutally for his inadequacies and branded an imbecile
(Vernon, 2001).
He was caned almost every day for being unable to learn his
lessons. Half his time at school was spent in tears on the ve-
randa (Lutyens, 1975).
THE KRINSH 21
Not surprisingly, then, in later years Krishnamurti evinced little

regard for academic accomplishments:
[The Nobel-caliber physicist David Bohm] spoke of the hu-

miliation he had experienced at the hands of Krishnamurti
who, in his presence, made cutting jokes about “professors”
and did not acknowledge the importance of Bohm’s work....
He suffered greatly under [Krishnamurti’s] disrespect of
him, which at times was blatantly obvious (Peat, 1997).
***
Krishnamurti’s contemporary appearance on Earth offered hope to

Theosophists for the “salvation of mankind.” After years of being
groomed for his role as their World Teacher, however, Krishnamurti’s
faith in the protection of Theosophy’s Masters, and Leadbeater’s
guiding visions of the same, was shattered in 1925 by the unexpected
death of his own younger brother. (Jiddu had previously been assured,
in his own believed meetings with the Masters on the astral plane, that
his brother would survive the relevant illness.) Thereafter, he viewed
those visions, including his own, as being merely personal wish-
fulfillments, and considered the occult hierarchy of Masters to be ir-
relevant (Vernon, 2001).
That, however, did not imply any rejection of mysticism in gen-
eral, on Krishnamurti’s part:
By the autumn of 1926 [following an alleged kundalini awak-

ening which began in 1922] Krishna made it clear ... that a
metamorphosis had taken place. [The kundalini is a subtle en-
ergy believed to reside at the base of the spine. When “awak-
ened” and directed up the spine into the brain, it produces ec-
static spiritual realization.] His former personality had been
stripped away, leaving him in a state of constant and irreversi-
ble union with the godhead (Vernon, 2001).
Or, as Krishnamurti (1969) himself put it, in openly proclaiming

his status as World Teacher:
I have become one with the Beloved. I have been made simple.
I have become glorified because of Him.
He maintained that his consciousness was merged with his be-

loved, by which he meant all of creation (Sloss, 2000).
In August of 1929, reasoning that organizations inherently con-

dition and restrict Truth, the thirty-four-year-old Krishnamurti for-
mally dissolved the Theosophical Society’s “Order of the Star”
branch, which he had previously headed since 1911.
Even there, however, it was more the organization and its “As-
cended Master”-based philosophy, rather than his own role as World
Teacher or Messiah, that was being repudiated. Krishnamurti himself
explained as much after the dissolution:
When it becomes necessary for humanity to receive in a new

form the ancient wisdom, someone whose duty it is to repeat
these truths is incarnated (in Michel, 1992).
Or, as Vernon (2001) confirmed:
[Krishnamurti] never went as far as to deny being the World

Teacher, just that it made no difference who or what he was.
In 1932, Krishnamurti and Rajagopal’s wife began an affair

which would last for more than twenty-five years. The woman, Rosa-
lind, became pregnant on several occasions, suffering miscarriages
and at least two covert/illegal abortions. The oddity of that relation-
ship is not lessened by Krishnamurti’s earlier regard for the same
woman. For, both he and his brother believed that Rosalind was the
reincarnation of their long-lost mother ... in spite of the fact that the
latter had only died two years after Rosalind was born (Sloss, 2000).
In the late 1930s, Krishnamurti retired to Ojai, California, be-
coming close friends with Aldous Huxley. Being thus affectionate,
however, did not stop Krishnamurti from insultingly regarding Hux-
ley, behind his back, as having a mind “like a wastebasket” (Sloss,
2000). Huxley in turn, after hearing Krishnamurti speak in Switzer-
land in 1961, wrote of that lecture: “It was like listening to a dis-
course of the Buddha” (in Peat, 1997). Further, when his house and
library were lost in a fire, Krishnamurti’s Commentaries on Living
were the first of the books he replaced.
“Wastebasket,” indeed.
THE KRINSH 23
With his proximity to northern Los Angeles, Krishnamurti also

visited with composer Igor Stravinsky, writer Thomas Mann and phi-
losopher-mathematician Bertrand Russell, and picnicked with screen
legends Greta Garbo and Charlie Chaplin.
The continuing affair with Rosalind was, not surprisingly, less
than completely in line with the quasi-Messiah’s own teachings:
Krishnamurti had occasionally told young people that celibacy

was significant, indicating that it encouraged the generation of
great energy and intensity that could lead to psychological
transformation. Krishnamurti seems to have raised the matter
with [David] Bohm as well, and the physicist believed that the
Indian teacher led a celibate life (Peat, 1997).
Bohm first met Krishnamurti in 1961, and went on to become

easily the most famous of his followers (until their distancing from
each other in 1984), co-authoring several books of dialogs on spiritual
topics with Jiddu. Bohm further sat as a trustee on the board of a
Krishnamurti-founded school in England, and was viewed by many as
potentially being the Krinsh’s “successor.”
Consequently, apologetic protests that Krishnamurti’s behavior
with Rosalind was “not dishonest/hypocritical,” simply for him not
having spent his entire life preaching the benefits of celibacy or mar-
riage, ring hollow. On the contrary, if we are to believe Peat’s report
that Krishnamurti “had spoken to Bohm of the importance of celi-
bacy,” there absolutely was a contradiction between Krishnamurti’s
teachings and his life. That is so even though the quarter-century af-
fair with Rosalind, hidden for whatever reasons, had ended by the
time he met Bohm. For, to teach “the importance of celibacy” both
before and after one’s own breach of that idea, even if not during the
decades of violation, with no mention of the behind-the-scenes reali-
ties to even your closest disciple and potential successor, smells aw-
fully fishy. Indeed, if one is allowed to so surreptitiously “change
one’s mind” without telling anyone, we could just as easily say that so
long as one wasn’t preaching “the importance of celibacy” while hav-
ing sex, there would be no inconsistency involved.
Short of that, the only possible verdict regarding Krishnamurti’s
behavior is that of obvious hypocrisy.
***
Given Krishnamurti’s own abusive schooling, it is hardly surprising

that he should have perpetuated that same cycle on his students, under
the pretense of deliberately creating crises to promote change and
growth in them:
The gopis [early, young female disciples of Krishnamurti, by

analogy with the followers of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita]
would seek out private interviews with him, during which he
mercilessly tore down their defenses and laid naked their
faults, invariably ending with the girls crying their hearts out,
but feeling it must be for the best (Vernon, 2001).
Even many years later, employing the same “skillful/cruel

means” of awakening others,
Krishnamurti confronted Bohm in a way that others later de-

scribed as “brutal” (Peat, 1997).
This is, as we shall see, a common problem among the world’s

spiritual paths for disciples who have endured their own guru-figures’
harsh discipline, and have then assumed license to treat others in the
same lousy way as they themselves had been treated. The excuse
there is, of course, always that such mistreatment is for the “spiritual
benefit” of those others, even in contexts where that claim could not
possibly be true.
Quarrels due to what Raja[gopal] remembers as Krishna’s fre-

quent lying and undercutting of him, Krishna’s agreeing to
proposals behind Raja’s back, and making promises that could
not be kept, became so severe after several months in South
America that once Krishna, who could only take so much criti-
cism, slapped Raja. This was not the only time that would hap-
pen, but it was the first (Sloss, 2000).
Krishnamurti lacked ordinary human compassion and kind-

ness; he was intolerant, even contemptuous, of those who
could not rise to his own high plane (Vernon, 2001).
THE KRINSH 25
“Born with a heart two sizes too small,” etc.

At least one of Jiddu’s early “gopis,” however, saw through his
clumsy, “cruel to be kind” attempts at spiritual discipline:
These supposedly privileged and beneficial sessions consisted

of Krishna repeatedly pointing out well-known faults and pick-
ing on everything detrimental and sapping one’s confidence
(Lutyens, 1972).
On at least one occasion, Krishnamurti was likewise inadver-

tently overheard making unsolicited, uncomplimentary remarks about
others ... in his bedroom, with Rosalind (Sloss, 2000).
Neither Rajagopal nor Rosalind were ever devotees of Krishna-
murti. Nor was David Bohm, whose own response to Krishnamurti’s
(unsolicited) harsh public discipline—in a context where they were
supposed to be in a dialog, not a guru-disciple relationship, by Jiddu’s
own explicit rejection of the latter—was beyond tragic:
[T]he physicist was thrown into despair. Unable to sleep, ob-

sessed with thoughts, he constantly paced the room to the point
where he thought of suicide. At one point he believed that he
could feel the neurotransmitters firing in his brain.... His de-
spair soon reached the point where he was placed on antide-
pressants....
He once wrote to [Fritz Wilhelm] that he thought that his
chest pains were a result of K’s [i.e., Krishnamurti’s] misbe-
having towards him. “This problem with K is literally crushing
me” (Peat, 1997).
***
Krishnamurti continued to lecture and discipline until his passing in

1986. In those activities, he gradually mutated his teaching style from
that of a “savior pronouncing cosmic truths” to that of a “personal
counselor,” focusing the content of those lectures on the split in con-
sciousness between subject and object:
When man becomes aware of the movement of his own con-

sciousness he will see the division between the thinker and the
thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the
experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion.

Then only is there pure observation which is insight without
any shadow of the past. This timeless insight brings about a
deep radical change in the mind (Krishnamurti, in [Lutyens,
1983]).
Through that personal realization, Krishnamurti claimed (com-

pletely untenably) to be unconditioned by his own upbringing and,
indeed, to have (conveniently) “forgotten” most of his past. Neverthe-
less, his own teachings have much in common with those of both the
Buddha and the Upanishads. Not coincidentally, Krishnamurti had
been intensively schooled in both of those philosophies during his
early years at Adyar (Sloss, 2000).
In line with his stultifying ideas on the nature of thought and
knowledge, Krishnamurti further gave no instruction in structural/
content techniques of meditation. Instead, he taught and practiced the
meditative exercise as “a movement without any motive, without
words and the activity of thought.”
[R]epeating mantras and following gurus were, he said, par-

ticularly stupid ways of wasting time (Peat, 1997).
And the Krinsh, with his krinsh-feet quite warm in Ojai,

Said, “Be independent, meditate my way!
Be free without gurus!
Be free without mantras!
Be free without beliefs, intentions or tantras!”
Jiddu himself, however, was a guru in everything but name. The

authoritarian pronouncements, intolerance for disagreement and gran-
diosity could have come from any of the other “enlightened” indi-
viduals with whom we shall soon become too familiar. Though
Krishnamurti was himself “allergic” to the guru-disciple relationship,
“if it looks like a guru, talks like a guru and acts like a guru....”
After so many years surrounded by an inner circle, like a mon-

arch attended by his courtiers who adored him and believed he
could do no wrong, he had grown unused to being contradicted
(Vernon, 2001).
THE KRINSH 27
[E]ven as he was insisting on the vital importance of individual

discovery, the transcripts of his conversations with pupils [at
his schools] reveal a man who mercilessly bullied his inter-
locutors into accepting his point of view (Washington, 1995).
Krishnamurti isolated himself from criticism and feedback,

“just like everybody he was criticizing,” [Joel] Kramer [co-
author of The Guru Papers] said, and had to have “the last
word on everything” (Horgan, 1999).
Even as he lay on his deathbed, wasting away from pancreatic

cancer, Krishnamurti stated firmly that “while he was alive he was
still ‘the World Teacher’” (Vernon, 2001). (That terminal illness oc-
curred in spite of his claimed possession of laying-on-of-hands heal-
ing abilities, which proved equally ineffectual in his own prior at-
tempts at healing Bohm of his heart ailments.) Indeed, so enamored
was “the Krinsh” of his own teaching position in the world that he
recorded the following statement a mere ten days before his passing:
I don’t think people realize what tremendous energy and intel-

ligence went through this body.... You won’t find another body
like this, or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for
many hundred years. You won’t see it again (in Lutyens,
1988).
Krishnamurti is supposed to have said that he is even greater

than Buddha or the Christ (in Sloss, 2000).
And what happened then...?

Well ... in Adyar they say
That the World Teacher’s head
Grew three sizes that day!
Of course, Krishnamurti’s dissolution of the Order of the Star is

often naïvely taken as indicating a profound humility on his part.
However, as we shall implicitly see with every one of the “sages” to
follow, it is only through extensive editing, in the selective presenta-
tion of the “enlightened” man’s speech and actions, that any of them
begin to look so humble and holy.
As to what Jiddu Krishnamurti’s own legacy may be, beyond his

voluminous and arid written and recorded teachings, he essentially
answered that question himself:
Shortly before his death the Indian teacher had declared that no
one had ever truly understood his teaching; no one besides
himself had experienced transformation (Peat, 1997).
That, too, is a recurring problem with the “great guru-figures” of

this world—in generally failing to create even one disciple “as great
as” themselves, in spite of their “skillful” discipline. More pointedly,
any lesser, non-World teacher who could openly admit that not even
one of his students had ever “truly understood his teaching” might
have begun to question his own abilities in that regard. This World
Teacher, however, evidently was not “conditioned” by any such need
for self-evaluation.
Krishnamurti exhibited a lifelong penchant for fine, tailored
clothes. One can further easily see clear vestiges, in his psychology,
of the Indian caste system under which he had grown up (Vernon,
2001). Indeed, that background influenced him even to the point of
his insisting that used books from others be wiped before his own
reading of them. In planning for his own death, he had further actu-
ally left instructions for the needed crematory oven to be thoroughly
cleaned before his own use of it, and for that cleanliness to be verified
by one of his followers. Evidently, this was to ensure that no one
else’s “impure” ashes would commingle with his own holy, brahmin-
caste remains.
We should all be so “unconditioned” by our own “forgotten”
pasts, no?
[W]hen I interrogated Krishnamurti himself about the whole

World Mother affair [i.e., the Theosophical Society’s short-
lived programme for global spiritual upliftment under a chosen
woman after the “World Teacher” plans for Krishnamurti had
fallen through], he blurted out, “Oh, that was all cooked u—”
before he caught himself in the realization that he was admit-
ting to a recollection of events in his early life which he later
came to deny he possessed (Sloss, 2000).
THE KRINSH 29
[Emily Lutyens] said she knew Krishna was a congenital liar

but that she would nevertheless always adore him....
My mother asked him once why he lied and he replied
with astonishing frankness, “Because of fear” (Sloss, 2000).
Krinsh was outraged. His voice changed completely from a

formal indifference to heated anger. It became almost shrill.
“I have no ego!” he said. “Who do you think you are, to
talk to me like this?” (Sloss, 2000).
One day, history will reveal everything; but the division in

Krishnamurti himself will cast a very dark shadow on all he
has said or written. Because the first thing the readers will say,
is: “If he cannot live it, who can?” (in Sloss, 2000).
Then the Krinsh slowly took off his World Teacher hat
“If my teaching,” he thought, “falls down too often flat....
“Maybe teaching ... perhaps ... is not what I’m good at.”
CHAPTER V
ZEN IN THE ART OF

SEX AND VIOLENCE
The Zen tradition has a history of famous drunken poets and

masters.... Public encouragement for drinking in several com-
munities where the teacher was alcoholic has led many stu-
dents to follow suit, and certain Buddhist and Hindu communi-
ties have needed to start AA groups to begin to deal with their
addiction problems....
Students who enter spiritual communities do not imagine
they will encounter these kinds of difficulties (Kornfield,
1993).
[I]t became known that Maezumi [roshi/guru of the Zen Center

in Los Angeles] had had a number of affairs with female stu-
dents and had also entered a dry-out clinic for alcoholics
(Rawlinson, 1997).
In 1975 and 1979, as well as later in 1982, the Zen Studies So-
ciety had been rocked by rumors of Eido Roshi’s alleged sex-
ual liaisons with female students....
Nor were the allegations limited to sexual misconduct.
They spread to financial mismanagement and incorrect behav-
ior (Tworkov, 1994).
30
ZEN IN THE ART OF SEX AND VIOLENCE 31
ZEN BUDDHISM HAS BEEN WIDELY POPULARIZED in the West through

the writings of individuals such as Alan Watts and D. T. Suzuki, not
to mention Philip Kapleau’s The Three Pillars of Zen and Eugen Her-
rigel’s Zen in the Art of Archery. As means toward enlightenment, it
predominantly utilizes zazen meditation—sitting and counting/watch-
ing one’s breath—and koans such as “What is the sound of one hand
clapping?” Its Rinzai sect in particular further employs behaviors in-
tended to shock disciples out of their normal state into enlightened
awareness, and to aid in the “death of the ego” of the student—for
which they also utilize “the stick”:
Zen teachers have an excellent method of dealing with students

who start comparing themselves to Buddha or God [after their
early enlightenment experiences, says Ken Wilber]. “They take
the stick and beat the crap out of you. And after five or ten
years of that, you finally get over yourself” (Horgan, 2003a).
That, however, is simply a ludicrously romanticized version of

physical abuse meted out in the name of spirituality. In reality, such
“crap-beating” behavior only shows the tempers and tendencies to-
ward violence of individuals who are naïvely viewed by their follow-
ers as being spiritually enlightened.
Richard Rumbold, an English Zen enthusiast, who spent about

five months at the Shokokuji, a monastery in Kyoto, describes
some savage beatings-up administered by the head monk and
his assistant for trifling disciplinary offences (Koestler, 1960).
Such brutal discipline could, further, easily get completely out of

hand. Indeed, as a true story told to Janwillem van de Wetering
(1999) during his long-term stay at a Japanese Zen monastery in
Kyoto in the early 1970s goes:
In Tokyo there are some Zen monasteries as well. In one of

these monasteries ... there was a Zen monk who happened to
be very conceited. He refused to listen to whatever the master
was trying to tell him and used the early morning interviews
with the master to air all his pet theories. The masters have a
special stick for this type of pupil. Our master has one, too,
you will have seen it, a short thick stick. One morning the mas-
ter hit the monk so hard that the monk didn’t get up any more.
He couldn’t, because he was dead....
The head monk reported the incident to the police, but the
master was never charged. Even the police know that there is
an extraordinary relationship between master and pupil, a rela-
tionship outside the law.
Likewise, at a Buddhist repentance ceremony,
two young monks nodded off. After the ceremony, Dokujiki

followed them back to the sodo, the monks’ hall. Screaming in
rage, Dokujiki grabbed the kyosaku [stick] and went after the
young monks.... Dokujiki repeatedly pounded the two terrified
fledglings with the thick winter stick.... Since Dokujiki was in
a position of authority, nobody said a word to him about his
transgressions....
“Some people would tell you that this is a tough form of
Buddhist compassion,” said Norman, “but it has nothing to do
with Buddhism or compassion. It’s a perversity that should be
rejected....
“Even the stick should be dropped. The stick and this stu-
pid macho attitude” (Chadwick, 1994).
Indeed, as far as “stupid macho attitudes” go, it would be diffi-

cult to top the celebration of Zen masters “beating the crap out of”
their disciples. Yet ironically, Wilber himself, quoted earlier in ex-
actly that regard, endorsed Chadwick’s above text, enthusiastically
blurbing, “I love this book!”
As Robert Buswell (1992) further tells it, such violence is actu-
ally not at all foreign to Zen, even outside of the purportedly valid
discipline of its followers. For, during the fight between celibates and
householders for control of Buddhist monasteries in Korea in the
1950s, after the end of the Korean War, the celibate monks
sometimes resorted to physical force to remove the married

monks from the monasteries; indeed, older bhiksus [celibate
monks] ... told many stories of celibates ordaining young thugs
off the streets to bring muscle to their movement....
According to the main news organ of the celibates ... the
married monks submitted false evidence in favor of their
claims and illegally invaded temples that bhiksus had occu-

pied, trying to retake them.
Such behavior would surely not have surprised Zen priest and
scholar D. T. Suzuki, nor was it inconsistent with the attitudes of “en-
lightened” Zen masters in general:
With his oft-pictured gentle and sagacious appearance of later

years, Suzuki is revered among many in the West as a true man
of Zen. Yet he wrote that “religion should, first of all, seek to
preserve the existence of the state,” followed by the assertion
that the Chinese were “unruly heathens” whom Japan should
punish “in the name of the religion.” Zen master Harada So-
gaku, highly praised in the English writings of Philip Kapleau,
Maezumi Taizan, and others, was also quoted by Hakugen [a
Rinzai Zen priest and scholar teaching at Hanazono University
in Kyoto]. In 1939 he wrote: “[If ordered to] march: tramp,
tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the
highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war
of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war
[now under way]” (Victoria, 1997).
Daizen Victoria, quoted immediately above, is himself no un-

sympathetic outsider, but is rather a practicing Soto Zen Buddhist
priest.
As Suzuki’s own “fully enlightened Zen master,” Soen/Soyen/
So-on—who had earlier attended the 1893 Parliament of Religions
(Fields, 1992)—put it:
[A]s a means of bringing into harmony those things which are

incompatible, killing and war are necessary (in Victoria, 1997).
The Rinzai Zen master Nantembo (1839 – 1925) would certainly

have agreed:
There is no bodhisattva practice superior to the compassionate

taking of life (in Victoria, 2003).
Likewise for the sagely Omori Sogen, “lauded as the ‘greatest

Zen master of modern times,’ whose very life is ‘worthy to be consid-
ered a masterpiece of Zen art’”:
Instead of a master concerned with the “life-giving sword” ...

of Zen, we encounter someone who from the 1920s took an ac-
tive part in the ultra-right’s agenda to eliminate parliamentary
democracy through political assassination at home and pro-
mote Japan’s imperialist aims abroad. In short, a man willing
to kill all who stood in the way of his political agenda, yet
claiming the enlightenment of the Buddha as his own....
Hosokawa Dogen writes: “The life of Omori Roshi is the
manifestation of traditional and true Zen” (Victoria, 2003).
Of Philip Kapleau’s guru, the Yasutani Haku’un immortalized in

The Three Pillars of Zen but regarded by some historians since then
as being “no less a fanatical militarist” than his own master, Daizen
Victoria (2003) opines:
Hakugen should have written: “Yasutani was an even more fa-

natical militarist, not to mention ethnic chauvinist, sexist, and
anti-Semite, than his master!”
Not until 2001 did any of the branches of Rinzai Zen admit or
apologize for their zealous support of Japanese militarism (in WWII
and otherwise), in equating that militarism with “Buddha Dharma”
(Victoria, 2003).
[D]uring the war leading Zen masters and scholars claimed,

among other things, that killing Chinese was an expression of
Buddhist compassion designed to rid the latter of their “de-
filements” (Victoria, 2003).
Zen has further long embraced, even prior to its introduction to

Japan in the twelfth century, the idea that enlightened beings tran-
scend good and evil.
One Zen master told me that the moral precepts were very im-
portant for students to follow, but, of course, Zen masters
didn’t need to bother with them since they were “free.” You
can imagine what troubles later visited that community (Korn-

field, 1993).
And yet, such contemporary attitudes as Kornfield describes are

simply “pure Zen,” as it has been practiced in the East for over a
thousand years. We can and should question such nonsense, but in
doing so we are not “returning Zen to its original/traditional form.”
Rather, we are adapting the accepted way of doing things for our
modern times. One cannot, after all, assert on the one hand that
“enlightened beings are no longer subject to the moral constraints en-
joined by the Buddhist precepts on the unenlightened,” and then turn
around and profess surprise when “troubles” visit not merely their
transplants into the West but their own traditional communities in the
East! Quite obviously, any such “transcendence of moral constraints”
would render the particular surrounding social rules irrelevant: If one
is not bound by laws, it doesn’t matter whether those same laws are
strict or lax when applied to others. Put another way: It doesn’t matter
what the speed limit is, or how fast you were going, if you’ve got dip-
lomatic immunity from prosecution for breaking laws which apply to
others but not to you.
The scandals, often of a sexual nature, that have rocked a

number of American Zen (and other Buddhist) centers in re-
cent years may seem a world apart from Zen-supported Japa-
nese militarism. The difference, however, may not be as great
as it first appears, for I suggest the common factor is Zen’s
long-standing and self-serving lack of interest in, or commit-
ment to, Buddhism’s ethical precepts (Victoria, 2003).
Again, that unflattering but unusually insightful observation

comes from an ordained Zen priest.
Interestingly, albeit for completely different reasons, neither van
de Wetering nor Buswell (who spent five years as a Zen monk in Ko-
rea) speak positively of the work of either D. T. Suzuki or Kapleau.
Rather, those writings on Zen, they respectively indicate, misrepre-
sent how it is actually practiced in contemporary Asia:
[Modern Zen] monks in Korea train within an extensive web

of religious thought and practice.... These monks know that
while Zen masters teach sudden enlightenment, they follow in
their daily practice a rigidly scheduled regimen of training.

They know that while Zen texts claim to eschew doctrinal un-
derstanding, monks are expected first to gain a solid grounding
in Buddhist texts before starting meditation practice....
The vision of Zen presented in much Western scholarship
distorts the quality of Zen religious experience as it is lived by
its own adherents (Buswell, 1992).
As to the actual life and mindset of Zen monks in Asia, then,

when seeking entrance to a monastery as a trainee the prospective
monk will first prostrate himself at the gate for hours or days.
When asked why he wishes to enter the monastery, the monk

should reply, “I know nothing. Please accept my request!” in-
dicating that his mind is like a blank sheet of paper, ready to be
inscribed by his superiors as they wish. If a monk fails to give
the proper answer, he is struck repeatedly with the kyosaku un-
til his shoulders are black and blue and the desired state of
mind is achieved (Victoria, 1997).
Having been accepted into the community with that “desired

state of mind,” even monks who were admitted just hours earlier will
exercise authority over the neophyte, preceding him at meals and on
other semiformal or formal occasions.
Those senior monks who have been in training for more than
one or two years seem, to the new entrant, to be superior be-
ings (Victoria, 1997).
***
What, then, of the widespread enlightenment which one might idealis-

tically wish to attribute to practitioners of Zen?
I once asked Katagiri Roshi, with whom I had my first break-

through ... how many truly great Ch’an and Zen masters there
have historically been. Without hesitating, he said, “Maybe
one thousand altogether.” I asked another Zen master how
many truly enlightened—deeply enlightened—Japanese Zen
masters there were alive today, and he said, “Not more than a
dozen” (Wilber, 2000a).
Thus, we have over a millennium of Zen teachers “beating the

crap out of” their numerous disciples on a regular basis, to generate a
scant thousand (i.e., around one per year, globally) “enlightened” in-
dividuals. That, however, would never be a reasonable trade-off, via
any “calculus of suffering.” That is so particularly since such enlight-
enment primarily benefits only the specific individual “blessed” by it,
not the world at large.
Be that as it may, the “death of the ego” in enlightenment re-
mains a strong motivation for meditators, in Zen and elsewhere.
[One] of the marks of the meditation monk [as opposed to the

monastery administrators, etc.] is to wear old clothes covered
with layer upon layer of patches. While such garments are
supposed to show his detachment from material possessions,
they more often serve as a kind of monastic status symbol. On
several occasions I even knew a monk new to the meditation
hall to trade a brand-new set of polyester robes for old patch-
work clothes. During their free time, the meditation monks can
often be found adding still more patches to their raiments
(Buswell, 1992).
More accurately, then, the death of other people’s egos remains a

strong motivating factor for meditators everywhere, with the leverage
of their respected power both acting to effect that, and aiding in the
indulgence of their own desires.
Mo-san’s trap turned out to be his very “noncaring dili-

gence”.... I heard that, some ten years later, he became a sub-
stitute master in an American Zen temple on the West Coast.
During his tenure he hid his shortness by wearing platform
soles under lengthened robes and insisted that his lay disciples
buy him a Cadillac to glide about in. He evoked a scandal by
trying to trade insights for intimate encounters with tall
blondes (van de Wetering, 2001).
Or, expressed in haiku:

Tall blonde, high heels, wow!

Is that a lengthened silk robe?
Happy to see you
We should hardly be surprised that relocating stick-wielding

“Eastern truths” into the materialistic and unconstrained West would
result in a dilution of their transformative value. But in their native,
sacred East?
Despite the disastrous problems most of his students had en-

countered trying to study Zen in Japan, [Shunryu] Suzuki [of
the San Francisco Zen Center, author of the million-selling Zen
Mind, Beginner’s Mind] continued to explore the possibility....
Suzuki had ordained [a] couple before they went to Japan. The
wife did fine at a nunnery, but her husband was forcibly se-
dated and shipped out of [the Soto headquarters, mountain
monastery at] Eiheiji. A woman from Zen Center had such
horrible experiences in Japanese temples that she rejected
Buddhism entirely, bought a wig, and moved to L.A. (Chad-
wick, 1999).
The “Little Suzuki” himself founded the world’s first Buddhist

monastery outside of Asia, at Tassajara hot springs—located three
hours southeast of San Francisco—in 1966. The list of visitors and
close associates to the San Francisco Zen Center (SFZC) and Tassa-
jara predictably reads like a “Who’s Who” of American Buddhist
(real and wanna-be) spirituality: Alan Watts, beat poet Alan Ginsberg
and the Pulitzer Prize-winning Gary Snyder. Also, translator Thomas
Cleary, social economist E. F. Schumacher, and Stewart Brand (co-
founder of the Whole Earth Catalog). Plus Robert Thurman, the Har-
vard-graduated scholarly father of Hollywood-goddess Uma and the
self-proclaimed “first hippie in Asia,” who was ordained as the first
American Tibetan Buddhist monk by the Dalai Lama himself. Addi-
tionally, Joan Baez, Mick Jagger, and Earl McGrath, the (former)
head of Rolling Stone Records. Also, anthropologist Gregory Bate-
son, former California governor and 1992 U.S. presidential candidate
Jerry Brown, and numerous other recipients of (seriously) auto-
graphed fruitcakes later presented by Suzuki’s successor, Richard
Baker.
For, before passing away in 1971, Suzuki-roshi had named

Baker as his sole American “dharma heir,” or recipient of the Bud-
dhist “transmission” from guru to disciple. (Baker, for his own part,
had earlier organized the first major LSD conference in the United
States, in 1966.)
“[What] does transmission mean?” I asked Suzuki.... “Does it

mean that Richard Baker is perfectly enlightened, and that his
mind is the same as the mind of Buddha? Is his understanding
complete?”
“Oh, no no no,” Suzuki said. “Don’t make too much of it.
It means he has a good understanding. A good understanding
and a complete commitment”....
[I]t was the equivalent of getting a teacher’s certificate.
Suzuki had said in lectures, “Transmission is nothing special,”
or “Actually, there is nothing to transmit” (Chadwick, 1999).
Baker himself, however, apparently evinced a somewhat more

self-flattering understanding as to the significance of his own spiritual
inheritance:
Transmission happens outside the limits of identity and ego.

The fact that an acknowledged master acknowledges you as a
Zen master means “you are no longer a Buddhist; what you do
is Buddhism” (Downing, 2001; italics added).
And what, then, “is Buddhism”?
As abbot of San Francisco Zen Center, between the abbot’s

budget and use of community-owned residences and resources,
[Baker] lived in a style that he estimates could be duplicated
by a private citizen with an annual salary of close to half a mil-
lion dollars a year (Tworkov, 1994).
Discipline under the transmitted “Frisco Zen master” then re-

portedly (Downing, 2001) included:
• Baker dictating to his followers as to whom they could or

couldn’t be involved with in sexual relationships
• The master having his followers “stand in rows and bow as

he drove away from Tassajara” in a “fantastic to drive”
BMW, thereby causing himself to be viewed by at least one
of those bowing disciples as the “Richard Nixon of Zen”
• Ostensibly “lifetime” members of the Tassajara Board of Di-
rectors involuntarily “going on sabbatical” when not being
sufficiently supportive of Baker’s wishes
“What Baker transmitted,” said a senior priest, “was power and

arrogance and an attitude that ‘I have it and you don’t’” (Twor-
kov, 1994).
At the San Francisco Zen Center, the problems that came to a

head in 1983 [involved] a number of master-disciple sexual af-
fairs, as well as a complex pattern of alleged misuses of au-
thority and charisma, both psychologically and financially
(Anthony, et al., 1987).
More specifically, the Harvard-educated, married Baker “was

forced to resign after his affair with a married student was revealed”
(Schwartz, 1996). The frantic husband of the rich, lithe blonde in
question—whom Baker reportedly claimed had seduced him (we
should all have such luck)—was a writer by the name of Paul Hawk-
en. He, in turn, was of upscale Smith & Hawken garden tool (and
more) catalog fame, and had previously been seen within the commu-
nity as being Richard’s best friend, even being referred to thusly by
Baker himself (Tworkov, 1994).
At least two other women were reportedly cruelly discredited as
being mentally unstable by Richard following the termination of his
alleged sexual involvement with them (Downing, 2001).
After all that, the author of The Tassajara Bread Book expressed
his own opinion of Baker:
A friend of mine said it best: I give thanks to Dick Baker every

day for fucking up so incredibly well that it gave me my life
back, because I had given it to him (in Downing, 2001).
Senior priests were testifying at public meetings about physical

and psychological abuse Richard had [allegedly] perpetrated....
Richard’s close friend and advisor, Esalen’s Michael

Murphy, told Richard that “the whole alternative movement
was crippled by what happened at Zen Center” (Downing,
2001).
And yet, to the present day, Baker reportedly insists:
The only scandalous thing that happened at Zen Center is how

I was treated (in Tworkov, 1994).
This lack of comprehension about what it might mean to “cause

no harm” to others, on the part of unapologetic individuals laying
claim to enlightenment, profound transmission and grand bodhisattva
vows, is something which we shall sadly meet consistently through-
out the following chapters. Worse, one regularly sees that persons
whose lives have been shattered by their guru-figures, who have then
mustered the courage to speak out, are being dismissed and discred-
ited as “crazy,” etc. Further, that is being done in ways indistinguish-
able from those in which secular victims of incest or rape are treated,
should they dare to come forward.
Baker’s own process of recovery from the self-inflicted 1983
“Apocalypse” included a letter from the Nobel Peace Prize nominee,
Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, vouching for Baker’s sincer-
ity of apology to the community. Also, a spurned offer from the Dalai
Lama for him to take refuge in northern India, and a trip to Disney-
land with singer Linda Ronstadt.
Getting ready for an evening out, [Baker] rolls up his sleeves

and says plaintively, “I didn’t dance enough when I was at Zen
Center. I should have danced more” (Tworkov, 1994).
Or, as Nero himself could have put it, millennia ago, upon seeing
his own empire burn: “I should have fiddled more.”
And how would all of the discontent regarding Baker’s alleged
behaviors have been handled in the “traditional” Far East?
The treatment of individual students was the purview of the

teacher. This was the traditional model. Whatever happened,
you could say it was a teaching (Downing, 2001; italics
added).
Further, following the 1983 “explosion,”
people came from Japan and tried to tell us that if we were un-
happy with the teacher, we should leave, and the teacher
should stay (Yvonne Rand, in [Downing, 2001]).
This pressure to have the unhappy students leave and let the holy
teacher stay, too, is very relevant to the unsupportable idea that guru-
disciple relationships have “traditionally” worked. (The untenable
claim implicit there is that in the agrarian East, such relationships had
“checks and balances” in place, which purportedly constrained the
behaviors of their guru-figures in ways which are absent in the West.)
For, observations such as Rand’s, above, clearly show that “tradi-
tional” societies have exercised far less practical checks and balances
on the behaviors of their gurus/kings/emperors than does the modern
and postmodern West.
I was taught in school [that the Japanese emperor] was the [sic]
god and I believed till I was ten years old and the war [i.e.,
WWII] over....
We thought Chinese inferior and whites were devils and
only god, our god, could win the war (in Chadwick, 1994).
Feudal society, with unquestioning obedience to the guru-like,

divine emperor—the “embodiment of Supreme Truth”—actually ex-
isted in the “divine land” of Japan until the midpoint of the twentieth
century. For the effects of that on the citizens, reflected in past and
present society and culture, consult Victoria’s (1997) Zen at War,
Van Wolferen’s (1990) The Enigma of Japanese Power, and Barry’s
(1992) Dave Barry Does Japan.
Consider, further, the private life of Gyokujun So-on, the Japa-
nese teacher of the late Shunryu Suzuki. Suzuki became a disciple of
So-on in 1917, at age thirteen. In those same years, So-on was carry-
ing on an affair with the wife of a local (Japanese) merchant.
[E]veryone knew about their relationship.... No one did any-

thing to stop their trysts, but there was general disapproval. It
was a contributing factor to So-on’s loss of students (Chad-
wick, 1999).
Note that this rule-breaking was met merely with a milquetoast

“general disapproval,” not with discipline or meaningful censure or
career impediments sufficient to cause it to stop. That is so regardless
of whatever one might propose the local cultural effect of such “gen-
eral disapproval” to otherwise be in terms of lost honor, etc. In that
behavior, further, So-on was merely carrying on a long-standing “tra-
dition” himself:
In the Edo Era [1600 – 1868], Buddhist priests did not marry,
but temples were busy places, and the priests in many cases
were somewhat worldly. Women began living in the temples,
to work and, at times, to love. They did not show their faces
because they weren’t supposed to be there to begin with
(Chadwick, 1999; italics added).
Otori [1814 – 1904] recognized that a large number of Bud-

dhist priests were already married, in spite of regulations pro-
hibiting it (Victoria, 1997; italics added).
[I]n Zen monasteries in Japan ... sex between men has long
been both a common practice and a prohibited activity
(Downing, 2001; italics added).
[A]t the same time every evening, there was the faint smell of
smoke from the dark graveyard. It wasn’t until the third or
fourth day that I realized that the monks weren’t piously light-
ing joss sticks for the old masters’ graves at all; they were
sneaking a quick forbidden [italics added] cigarette in the
shadows of the mossy tombstones....
No one was around when I left the sodo, but I thought I
heard the sound of female laughter from within the labyrinth of
thin-walled rooms, and I couldn’t help wondering what other
rules might be relaxed when the roshi was out of town.
I walked out through the terracotta courtyard, and as I
passed the doghouse I saw that [the dog’s] dish contained or-
dinary mud-colored kibbles. This confirmed my suspicion that
the [prohibited in the Buddhist diet] meat on the stove hadn’t
been for the dog, at all (Boehm, 1996).
In accord with such wholly unpunished, contemporary rule-

breaking, Janwillem van de Wetering (1999) relates his own experi-
ences in Kyoto:
I noticed that the young monks had discovered ways to break

the rules of the monastery.... When they put on a suit and a cap
nobody would recognize them, and I saw them climb over the
wall at night.
“Whatever do you do when you are over the wall?” I
asked Han-san, the youngest monk, who had become my
friend.
“As long as you don’t tell anyone,” Han-san said. “We go
to the cinema, and sometimes to a pub to have a little saké, but
it’s difficult because at 3:30 in the morning we have to visit the
master and we can’t be smelling of alcohol. And sometimes we
go to the whores.”
Zen priests and monks, unlike those in other branches of Bud-

dhism (e.g., Theravada), are not actually sworn to celibacy. Neverthe-
less, the above clandestine activities, even by non-enlightened indi-
viduals who cannot claim to have “transcended rules of good and
evil,” certainly constituted a breaking of the rules of the Asian com-
munity/society. They further again suffered no associated punishment
from the monastery leaders—who themselves would surely have vio-
lated the same rules in their “younger days.”
The point here is obviously not that “rules are meant to be
obeyed”—as Socrates would evidently have it, in docilely accepting
the unfair death-sentence handed to him by the ancient tribunal (As-
kenasy, 1978), or in “just following the orders” of that authority.
Rather, the relevant point to take from all of these examples is simply
that the claim that spiritual aspirants “followed the rules” in the agrar-
ian East or otherwise in no way matches the documented information.
That, in turn, is wholly relevant to the “guru game,” simply because
the same belief is regularly used to support the false idea that guru-
disciple relationships worked in those contexts, even if not function-
ing properly in our own society and culture.
Nor was it necessary to go out “seeking” in order to “find” the
enjoyments listed by van de Wetering, above:
Girls threw rocks into the sodo’s courtyard with invitations at-
tached with red ribbons.... I once got a rock on my head (van
de Wetering, 2001).
Wet night, a rock, ouch!

Her love trails in red ribbons
Falling from the sky
But far, far away from such “enlightenment” ... where noble, re-
vered masters and their humble disciples chop wood, draw water, and
have illicit sex ... the quiet, spontaneous grace of a Zen archer, his
performance broadcast on Dutch television—
a Japanese archery-adept in robes, bowing, kneeling, dancing,

praying before he pulled his bow’s string ... and had his arrow
miss the target completely (van de Wetering, 2001).
The young girls throwing rocks over Kyoto monastery walls,

however—their sweet offers of love attached by soft red silk ribbons
—hit the bull’s eye every time.
CHAPTER VI
SEX, BLISS,
AND ROCK ‘N’ ROLL
(SWAMI SATCHIDANANDA)
SWAMI SATCHIDANANDA WAS THE FOUNDER of the Yogaville ashram

in Buckingham County, Virginia—begun in 1979—and its satellite
Integral Yoga institutes in New York, San Francisco and elsewhere.
He was born in southern India in 1914 and married young but,
after his wife’s death, left his children and embarked at age twenty-
eight on a full-time spiritual quest.
In 1949 he was initiated as a swami by his own spiritual master,
the renowned Swami Sivananda, having searched the mountains and
forests of India to find that sage in Rishikesh. His monastic name,
Satchidananda, means “Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.”
He came to New York in 1966 as a guest of the psychedelic art-
ist Peter Max.
Word soon spread that Satchidananda had cured the kidney ail-
ment of a disciple by blessing a glass of water.
He spoke at Woodstock in 1969, having been flown in via heli-
copter to bless the historic music festival:
I am very happy to see that we are all gathered to create some

“making” sounds, to find that peace and joy through the celes-
tial music. I am honored for having been given the opportunity
46
SEX, BLISS, AND ROCK ‘N’ ROLL 47
of opening this great, great music festival (Satchidananda, in

[Wiener, 1972]).
Even prior to Woodstock, Satchidananda had sold out Carnegie

Hall, being viewed as one of the “class acts” in the spiritual market-
place.
His views on nutrition were solicited by the Pillsbury Corpora-
tion.
By the beginning of the 1970s, thousands of Integral Yoga devo-
tees studied at fifteen centers around the United States. By the late
’70s, Satchidananda’s (1977) followers numbered in the hundreds of
thousands. Included in that group have been the health and diet expert
Dr. Dean Ornish, model Lauren Hutton, Jeff “The Fly” Goldblum,
and Carol “You’ve Got a Friend” King, who donated Connecticut
land to the yogi’s organization.
Having acquired other, warmer property for Yogaville in Vir-
ginia, Sivananda Hall was built there, complete with a wooden throne
for the guru, set atop a large stage at one end of the hall. Life for the
poorer “subjects” within that 600-acre spiritual kingdom, however,
was apparently less than regal:
The ritual abnegations of the sannyasin [monks] included a

pledge to “dedicate my entire life and renounce all the things
which I call mine at the feet of Sri Gurudev [i.e., Satchidan-
anda]. This includes my body, mind, emotions, intellect, and
all the material goods in my possession.” Though they weren’t
expected to pay for basics like food and lodging, they were
relegated to rickety trailers sometimes infested with mice or
lice (Katz, 1992).
In the midst of his followers’ reported poverty, Satchidananda

himself nevertheless acquired an antique Cadillac and a cherry red
Rolls-Royce.
Further, and somewhat oddly given Satchidananda’s Woodstock
background, in the ashram itself
dozens of onetime children of rock ‘n’ roll sat down to make

lists of “offensive” songs and television shows to be banned
within Yogaville’s borders. Soon after, dating between ashram
children was banned through the end of high school. Then all
children attending the ashram school were asked to sign a

document pledging that they would not date, have sexual con-
tact, listen to restricted music, or watch restricted television
shows.
Satchidananda never came forth to comment formally on
the new restrictions, but residents understood that the rules car-
ried his implied imprimatur (Katz, 1992).
With those restrictions in place, an ashram member was soon re-

ported for listening to a Bruce Springsteen album.
Increasingly oddly, given all that: Rivers Cuomo, the lead singer
of the power-pop band Weezer, spent his first ten years in Yogaville.
***
Some people take advantage of the language in the tantric

scriptures, “I’m going to teach you tantric yoga,” they say.
“Come sleep with me.” With a heavy heart I tell you that some
so-called gurus do this, and to them I say, “If you want to have
sex, be open about it. Say, ‘I love you, child, I love you, my
devotee’”....
Yoga monks automatically become celibate when they
have a thirst to know the Absolute God, and feel that in order
to do so they must rise above the physical body and the senses
(Satchidananda, in [Mandelkorn, 1978]).
[T]he distinguishing mark of a Guru is, as Sri Swamiji [i.e.,

Satchidananda] says, “complete mastery over his or her body
and mind, purity of heart, and total freedom from the bondage
of the senses” (in Satchidananda, 1977).
The taking of the monastic vows in which the title of “Swami” is

conferred again inherently includes a vow of celibacy. That serious
promise, however, may not have stopped the “Woodstock Swami”
from, as they say, “rocking out,” via Springsteen’s The Rising or oth-
erwise:
In 1991 numerous female followers stated that he had used his

role as their spiritual mentor to exploit them sexually. After the
allegations became public many devotees abandoned Satchi-
SEX, BLISS, AND ROCK ‘N’ ROLL 49
dananda and hundreds of students left IYI schools, but the

Swami never admitted to any wrongdoing. As a result, the In-
tegral Yoga organization diminished by more than 1/3. An or-
ganization called the Healing Through the Truth Network was
formed and at least eight other women came forward with
claims of sexual abuse (S. Cohen, 2002a).
[Susan Cohen claims that] Satchidananda took advantage of

her when she was a student from 1969 [when she was eight-
een] to 1977 (Associated Press, 1991).
Another follower, nineteen-year-old Sylvia Shapiro, accompa-

nied the swami on a worldwide trip.
“In Manila, he turned [his twice-daily massages from me] into

oral sex,” Ms. Shapiro said (Associated Press, 1991).
Until December [of 1990], Joy Zuckerman was living at Yo-

gaville, where she was known as Swami Krupaananda. She left
after a friend confided in her that Satchidananda had made
sexual advances toward her last summer, Ms. Zuckerman said
(McGehee, 1991).
***
A Guru is the one who has steady wisdom ... one who has real-
ized the Self. Having that realization, you become so steady;
you are never nervous. You will always be tranquil, nothing
can shake you (Satchidananda, 1977).
Satchidananda’s own driver, however, recognized characteristics oth-

er than such holy ones, in the swami:
After hours of sitting in traffic jams observing his spiritual

master in the rearview mirror, Harry had decided that Sri
Swami Satchidananda was not only far from serene, he was a
bilious and unforgivingly cranky old man. Not once had Harry
felt his spiritual bond with Satchidananda enhanced by all the
carping, however edifyingly paternal it was meant to be (Katz,
1992).
As they say, “No man is great in the eyes of his own valet.”
In describing how a “steady” man would see the world, Satchid-
ananda (1977) further quoted Krishna from the Bhagavad Gita:
Men of Self-knowledge look with equal vision on a brahmana

[i.e., a spiritual person] imbued with learning and humility, a
cow, an elephant, a dog and an outcaste.
There is, however, always the contrast between theory and prac-
tice:
Lorraine was standing beside one of [Satchidananda’s] Cadil-

lacs ... when the beautiful model [Lauren Hutton] and the guru
came out and climbed inside. Satchidananda did not acknowl-
edge Lorraine’s presence except to glare at her and bark in his
irritated father voice, “Don’t slam the door” (Katz, 1992).
***
Satchidananda passed away in August of 2002. Before he died, he had

this to say regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct made
against him:
“They know it is all false,” [Satchidananda] had said about

eight years ago [i.e., in 1991]. “I don’t know why they are say-
ing these things. My life is an open book. There is nothing for
me to hide” (S. Chopra, 1999).
Yogaville, meanwhile, is still very much alive, albeit amid a

more recently alleged “mind control” scandal involving a university-
age woman, Catherine Cheng (Extra, 1999).
CHAPTER VII
THE SIXTH BEATLE

(MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI)
Physicist John S. Hagelin ... has predicted that Maharishi’s in-

fluence on history “will be far greater than that of Einstein or
Gandhi” (Gardner, 1996).
You could not meet with Maharishi without recognizing in-

stantly his integrity. You look in his eyes and there it is (Buck-
minster Fuller, in [Forem, 1973]).
Maharishi’s entire movement revolves around ... faith in his

supposed omniscience (Scott, 1978).
BORN IN 1918, THE MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI graduated with a phys-

ics degree from the University of Allahabad. Soon thereafter, he re-
ceived the system of Transcendental Meditation® (TM®) from his
“Guru Dev,” Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, who occupied the
“northern seat” of yoga in India, as one of four yogic “popes” in the
country. He practiced yoga for thirteen years under Guru Dev, until
the latter’s death in 1953. The Maharishi (“Great Sage”) then traveled
to London in 1959 to set up what was to become a branch of the In-
ternational Meditation Society there, with the mission of spreading
the teachings of TM.
51
Transcendental Meditation itself is an instance of mantra yoga.

The student mentally repeats a series of Sanskrit words for a mini-
mum of twenty minutes every morning and evening. (Such mantras
are reportedly selected on the basis of the student’s age. And they
don’t come cheaply.)
Maharishi was quick to discourage other disciplines. “All these

systems have been misinterpreted for the last hundreds of
years,” he said. “Don’t waste time with them. If you are inter-
ested in hatha yoga, wait until I have time to re-interpret it.
There is no match for Transcendental Meditation either in
principles or in practice in any field of knowledge” (Ebon,
1968; italics added).
The Maharishi held high hopes, not merely for the spread of TM,
but for its effects on the world in general:
He told the New York audience, as he had told innumerable

others before in several around-the-world tours, that adoption
of his teachings by 10% or even 1% of the world’s population
would “be enough to neutralize the power of war for thousands
of years” (Ebon, 1968).
The [TM] movement taught that the enlightened man does not
have to use critical thought, he lives in tune with the “un-
bounded universal consciousness.” He makes no mistakes, his
life is error free (Patrick L. Ryan, in [Langone, 1995]).
In the autumn of 1967, His Holiness gave a lecture in London,

which was attended by the Beatles. Following that talk, the Fab Four
—along with Mick Jagger and Marianne Faithfull—accompanied the
yogi on a train up to Bangor, North Wales, at his invitation. Reaching
the train platform in Bangor, they were mobbed by hundreds of
screaming fans, whom the Maharishi charmingly assumed were there
to see him.
Like Ravi Shankar before him, [the Maharishi had] been un-
aware of the group’s stature, but, armed with the relevant re-
cords, he underwent a crash-course in their music and began to
illustrate his talks with quotes from their lyrics. Flattered
THE SIXTH BEATLE 53
though they were, the Beatles were unconvinced by his argu-

ment that, if they were sincere about meditation, they ought to
tithe a percentage of their income into his Swiss bank account.
Because they hadn’t actually said no, the Maharishi assured
American investors that the four would be co-starring in a TV
documentary about him (Clayson, 1996).
It was reported that Maharishi’s fee for initiating the Beatles

was one week’s salary from each of them—a formidable sum
(Klein and Klein, 1979).
In the middle of February, 1968, John, Paul, George and Ringo,

with their respective wives and girlfriends, arrived at the Maharishi’s
Rishikesh meditation retreat in India. They were joined there by Mike
Love of the Beach Boys and “Mellow Yellow” Donovan, as well as
by the newly Sinatra-less Mia Farrow and her younger sister, Pru-
dence. (The Doors and Bob Weir, guitarist for the Grateful Dead,
were also enthusiastic about TM, but did not participate in the Rishi-
kesh trip. More contemporary followers of the Maharishi have in-
cluded actress Heather Graham and the Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Brian Josephson. Plus Deepak Chopra [see TranceNet, 2004], whose
best-selling book Quantum Healing was dedicated to the Maharishi.
Also, at one time, Clint Eastwood and quarterback Joe Namath.)
As Ringo himself put it:
The four of us have had the most hectic lives. We’ve got al-
most everything money can buy, but of course that just means
nothing after a time. But we’ve found something now that
really fills the gap, and that is the Lord (in Giuliano, 1986).
The Beatles’ 1968 stay in Rishikesh was originally scheduled to

last for three months.
Predictably, Ringo and his wife Maureen were the first to leave,
after ten days, citing the “holiday camp” atmosphere, the spiciness of
the food, the excessive insects and the stifling midday temperatures.
Well, it was India, after all—what exactly did they expect, if not
deathly spicy cuisine, mosquitos, bedbugs and interminable heat? If
they wanted bland food and cool weather, they should have stayed in
Liverpool, awash in bangers and mash to “fill the gap.”
Paul McCartney and Jane Asher bailed out a month later, plead-
ing homesickness.
John and Cynthia and George and Patti, however, persevered,
with John and George writing many songs which would later appear
on the White Album. Indeed, most of the thirty-plus songs on that disc
were composed in the Maharishi’s ashram. “Dear Prudence,” for one,
was written for Mia Farrow’s sister, who was so intent on spiritual
advancement that it was delegated to John and George to get her to
“come out to play” after her three weeks of meditative seclusion in
her chalet.
The overall calm there, however, was soon shattered by various
suspicions:
[A]ccurately or not, they became convinced that the Maharishi

had distinctly worldly designs on one of their illustrious fellow
students, actress Mia Farrow. They confronted him, in an
oblique way, with this accusation, and when he was unable to
answer it, or even figure out precisely what it was, they headed
back to London (Giuliano, 1986).
By Farrow’s own (1997) recounting, that may have been just a

simple misunderstanding based on the Maharishi’s unsolicited hug-
ging of her after a private meditation session in his cave/cellar. Less
explicable, though, are reports of the same sage’s offering of chicken
to at least one female student within his otherwise-vegetarian ashram,
in alleged attempts to curry her favor (Clayson, 1996).
The Beatles’ disillusionment with the Maharishi during their

stay with him in India in 1968 involved allegations that Maha-
rishi had sex with a visiting American student (Anthony, et al.,
1987).
“Sexy Sadie” was later composed in honor of those believed foi-

bles on the part of His Holiness.
In any case, within a week Mia Farrow, too, had left the ashram
on a tiger hunt, never to return (to Rishikesh).
[T]he Maharishi burst into the Beatles’ lives, offering salvation

with a price tag of only fifteen [sic] minutes of devotion a day.
THE SIXTH BEATLE 55
“It seemed too good to be true,” Paul McCartney later quipped.

“I guess it was” (Giuliano, 1989).
The Beatles ... parted with Maharishi in 1969 with the public
comment that he was “addicted to cash” (Klein and Klein,
1979).
John and Yoko, interestingly, later came to believe that they

were the reincarnations of Robert and Elizabeth Barrett Browning,
respectively. (One of Yoko’s songs on their joint album Milk and
Honey is titled, “Let Me Count the Ways.”)
No word on who Ringo might have been.
George soon became heavily involved with the Hare Krishnas—
as one might have gathered from the chorus to his “My Sweet Lord”
single—although ultimately leaving them completely out of his will.
Indeed, at one point members of Hare Krishna were signed to Apple
Records as the “Radha Krishna Temple.” They released at least one
chanted single on that label, which made it into the “Top 20” in Sep-
tember of 1969. The Krishnas’ Bhaktivedanta Manor headquarters in
London, too, was actually a gift from Harrison—which he at one
point threatened to transfer to Yogananda’s Self-Realization Fellow-
ship instead, when the Krishnas were not maintaining the grounds to
his satisfaction (Giuliano, 1989).
The devotional/mantra yoga-based Hare Krishna movement it-
self is rooted in the extremely patriarchal Vedic culture (c. 7000 BC
India). It was brought to the United States in the mid-1960s by the
now-late Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada—who soon starred in a
San Francisco rock concert featuring the Grateful Dead, Jefferson
Airplane and Janis Joplin. Prabhupada’s own guru was claimed to be
an avatar. (George, John and Yoko participated in an extended inter-
view with Prabhupada in 1969, which was kept in print in booklet
form by the Krishna organization for many years afterwards. Harrison
also wrote the foreword for Prabhupada’s book, Krishna: The Su-
preme Personality of Godhead.)
Details along the following lines as to the alleged horrendous
goings-on within the Hare Krishna community, including widespread
claims of child sexual abuse, drug dealing and weapons stockpiling,
have long existed:
The founder of the institution, the late Prabhupada, was alleg-

edly told about the physical and sexual abuse of minors in
1972, a time when he totally controlled the institution. The vic-
tims allege he and others conspired to suppress the alleged
crimes, fearful that the public exposure would threaten the vi-
ability of the movement (S. Das, 2003).
[After Prabhupada’s death] the Hare Krishna movement de-

generated into a number of competing [so-called] cults that
have known murder, the abuse of women and children, drug
dealing, and swindles that would impress a Mafia don (Hubner
and Gruson, 1990).
The movement’s [post-Prabhupada] leadership was first forced

to confront the victims of abuse at a meeting in May 1996,
when a panel of ten former Krishna pupils testified that they
had been regularly beaten and caned at school, denied medical
care and sexually molested and raped homosexually at knife
point (Goodstein, 1998).
Or, as Hubner and Gruson (1990) alleged:
[B]oys were ordered to come to the front of the class and sit on
[their teacher] Sri Galima’s lap. Sri Galima then anally raped
them, right in front of the class. Other boys were ordered to
stay after class. Sri Galima tied their hands to their desks with
duct tape and then assaulted them in the same way.
At night, Fredrick DeFrancisco, Sri Galima’s assistant,
crept into the boys’ sleeping bags and performed oral sex on
them.
George Harrison was of course stabbed in his London home at

the end of 1999 by a man who believed that the Beatles were “witch-
es.” Interestingly, one of the reasons given by his attacker for continu-
ing that attempt at murder was that Harrison kept chanting the protec-
tive mantra, “Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna”—interpreted by his dis-
turbed assailant as a curse from Satan.
In any case, returning to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s mission:
The number of people practicing TM grew nearly exponentially from
1967 through 1974. By 1975 there were more than half a million peo-
THE SIXTH BEATLE 57
ple in America who had learned the technique, over a million world-
wide, and the Maharishi had been featured on the cover of Time
magazine. Were that exponential growth to have continued, the entire
United States would have been doing TM by 1979. As it stands, with
the law of diminishing returns and otherwise, there are currently four
million practitioners of Transcendental Meditation worldwide.
In 1973, Maharishi International University (MIU) was estab-
lished in Santa Barbara, California, moving a year later to its perma-
nent location in Fairfield, Iowa. Interestingly, when the Maharishi
first touched down in the latter location in his pink airplane, perhaps
influenced by his contact with the Beatles (“How do you find Ameri-
can taste?/We don’t know, we haven’t bitten any yet,” etc.), he
quaintly announced: “We are in Fairfield, and what we find is a fair
field.”
Approximately one thousand students currently practice TM and
study Vedic theory in that “fair field,” particularly as the latter theory
relates to accepted academic disciplines, including the hard sciences.
MIU has since been re-christened as the Maharishi University of
Management (MUM). Presently, one-quarter of the town’s 10,000
residents are meditators.
***
In 1976, the Maharishi discovered the principles which were to lead

to the TM Sidhi [sic] Program—based on the siddhis or powers out-
lined in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras. Those include the technique of Yogic
Flying, or levitation ... or “hopping down the yogi trail”:
During the first stage of Yogic Flying, the body—motivated

only by the effortless mental impulse of the Sidhi technique—
rises up in the air in a series of blissful hops (Maharishi, 1995).
“It’s a form of levitation, you’re actually lifted one or two feet

by the exhilaration” that some describe as “bubbling bliss,”
explained Transcendental Meditation spokesman Joseph Box-
erman (Associated Press, 2003).
[Taxi’s Andy Kaufman had a] consuming devotion to Tran-

scendental Meditation ... he believed it had taught him to levi-
tate (Blanco, 2000).
[T]he guru himself announced in 1978 on TV (“The Merv

Griffin Show”) that he had enrolled some forty thousand stu-
dents in this [Sidhi] course! Griffin then asked the obvious
question: How many had learned to levitate? Declared the
Great Guru: “Thousands!” (Randi, 1982).
Repeated attempts by the skeptical Mr. Randi to secure docu-

mented and believable evidence of that levitation were unsuccessful.
He did, however, report (1982) receiving the following admission,
from one Mr. Orme-Johnson, director of TM’s International Center
for Scientific Research:
“We do not claim,” he said, “that anyone is hovering in the

air.”
Nevertheless, hovering or not, the possible effects of one’s

missed practice on the world were apparently not to be taken lightly:
At MIU and throughout the [TM] movement, guilt was used to

manipulate students into never missing a flying session. When
the Iranians seized the American Embassy, a MIU student
friend who had missed a flying session was called into the
dean’s office and blamed for the hostage-taking in Iran (Pat-
rick L. Ryan, in [Langone, 1995]).
All of that notwithstanding, by 1994 the technique of “Yogic

Flying” had been taught to more than 100,000 people worldwide.
The Maharishi has also claimed that advanced practitioners

can develop powers of invisibility, mind-reading, perfect
health and immortality (Epstein, 1995).
His Holiness further asserted a “Maharishi Effect,” whereby

relatively small numbers of meditators are claimed to be able to posi-
tively and measurably influence world events. That phenomenon has
even been alleged to measurably lower crime rates in regions such as
Washington, DC, and Kosovo (in August of 1999), via the “accumu-
lated good energy” of the practitioners.
THE SIXTH BEATLE 59
As a press release on the website states, “When the group

reached about 350 Yogic Flyers, the [Kosovo] destruction
ended” (Kraus, 2000).
In the early ’90s, four thousand of the Maharishi’s followers

spent eight weeks in Washington holding large-scale group
meditations. They claimed they helped reduce crime during
that time. But the District’s police department was uncon-
vinced (Perez-Rivas, 2000).
In a more detailed analysis of relevant data, Randi (1982) has

presented many additional, quantitative reasons to deeply question the
reality of the so-called Maharishi Effect.
Such critical analyses aside, however, there seems to be little
doubt within the ranks as to the beneficial effects of TM on the course
of world history:
[A]ll the social good—the move away from potential world-

wide disaster toward global enlightenment—that has devel-
oped in the last few years I naturally consider to be the result
of more people practicing Transcendental Meditation. After
all, Maharishi did say that this would happen way back then
[i.e., in the late 1950s], and it has (Olson, 1979).
More recently, “the Maharishi said he intends to bring about

world peace by establishing huge Transcendental Meditation centers
with thousands of full-time practitioners all over the world” (Falsani,
2002).
Maharishi explains that every government, just by creating and

maintaining a group of Yogic Flyers, will actualize the ideal of
Administration [of the Natural Law “Constitution of the Uni-
verse”], the supreme quality of Administration of government
in every generation (in Maharishi, 1995).
“Natural Law” is “the orderly principles—the laws of nature—

that govern the functioning of nature everywhere, from atoms to eco-
systems to galaxies” (Maharishi, in [Kraus, 2000]).
Governmental “administration,” further,
is a matter of expert intelligence. It shouldn’t be exposed to

voters on the street [i.e., to democracy] (Maharishi, in [Wettig,
2002]).
Soon every government will maintain its own group of Yogic

Flyers as the essential requirement of national administration,
and every nation will enjoy the support of Natural Law. All
troubles on Earth will fade into distant memories, and life will
be lived in perfection and fulfillment by every citizen of every
nation, now and for countless generations to come (Maharishi,
1995).
Such anticipated “fading of all troubles into distant memory”

will undoubtedly have been aided by the formation, in 1992, of the
politically “green” Natural Law Party, on the campus of MIU/MUM.
The party has since fielded U.S. presidential candidates, and legisla-
tive hopefuls in California. The late magician and disciple Doug Hen-
ning, a long-time sincere TM practitioner and attempted “Yogic
Flyer,” actually ran for office under the NLP banner in both Britain
and Toronto.
In keeping with the hoped-for freedom from our secular troubles,
in the wake of September 11, 2001,
the Maharishi announced that if some government gave him a

billion dollars, he would end terrorism and create peace by hir-
ing 40,000 Yogic Fliers to start hopping full time. No govern-
ment took him up on the offer, which clearly irks him
(Carlson, 2002).
And yet, the freedom from war and other troubles anticipated by
the Great Sage appears to have its cost:
I have heard Maharishi say on occasion that in the society he

envisions, if someone is not smiling or happy he would be
picked up by a meditation paddy wagon and taken to a check-
ing facility for the proper TM treatment and then released
(Scott, 1978).
***
THE SIXTH BEATLE 61
One of the primary selling points of TM has always been its pur-
ported “scientific” nature, and the studies which have been done
claiming to corroborate its beneficial effects. However:
One three-year study done by the National Research Council

on improving human performance concluded that “TM is inef-
fectual in improving human performance” and that pro-TM re-
searchers were “deeply flawed in their methodology” (Ross,
2003a).
Consider also the reported results from a German study of TM

practitioners:
• 76% of long-term meditators experience psycho-

logical disorders—including 26% nervous break-
downs
• 63% experienced serious physical complaints
• 70% recorded a worsening ability to concentrate
• Researchers found a startling drop in honesty
among long-term meditators
The TM movement attempted to suppress this report in Ger-

man courts, but its findings were upheld [in 1989] by the Ger-
man high court (TranceNet, 2003).
See also Holmes (1988) for additional information regarding the

reported effects, or lack of same, of TM and other forms of medita-
tion.
***
With or without the young Ms. Farrow’s bodacious presence around

the Maharishi’s ashrams, controversy continues to haunt the $3.5 bil-
lion worldwide enterprise of the yogic “Sixth Beatle.” (The late ex-
guitarist Stuart Sutcliffe was known as the “fifth.”)
His compound in India was the focus of allegations [in The

Illustrated Weekly of India, July 17, 1988] regarding “child
molestation, death from abuse and neglect” (Ross, 2003a).
The [previous media] reports charged that at least five boys

had died under mysterious circumstances and that about 8000
of the 10,000 children admitted to the vidya peeth in the past
five years had run away from the ashram, allegedly because of
the “torture” they had been subjected to inside....
To make matters more difficult for the ashram admini-
stration, [local MLA Mahendra Singh] Bhati and an ayurvedic
physician, Dr. Govind Sharma, formerly employed at the ash-
ram, charged that some of the boys were also subjected to sex-
ual abuse by the teachers (Dutt, 1988).
The ashram itself has denied all of those allegations, in the same
article.
And how have other, past problems within the sphere of influ-
ence of the Great Sage been handled? It depends on whom you ask;
Skolnick (1991), for one, reported:
“I was taught to lie and to get around the pretty rules of the
‘unenlightened’ in order to get favorable reports into the me-
dia,” says [one former, high-ranking follower]. “We were
taught how to exploit the reporters’ gullibility and fascination
with the exotic, especially what comes from the East. We
thought we weren’t doing anything wrong, because we were
told it was often necessary to deceive the unenlightened to ad-
vance our guru’s plan to save the world.”
CHAPTER VIII
BEEN HERE,
DONE THAT,
WHAT NOW?
(RAM DASS, ETC.)
It is useful here to remember that your guru, even though you

may not have met him in his manifest [i.e., physical] form ...
KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU ... EVERYTHING
(Dass, 1971).
RAM DASS, AUTHOR of Be Here Now—one of the seminal books stir-

ring widespread interest in Eastern philosophy and gurus in the West
—is one of the good-at-heart guys through all this. He has, indeed,
endeared himself to many by his sincerity. His ability to admit when
he is wrong has also come in handy, in terms of his experiences with
the contemporary female spiritual leader Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati.
Born Richard Alpert in 1931, Dass graduated from Stanford
University with a Ph.D. in Psychology. He went on to participate,
with Timothy Leary, in a research program into altered states of con-
sciousness at Harvard, utilizing large amounts of LSD under rela-
tively uncontrolled circumstances. Those same activities got him fired
from that faculty in 1963.
63
Four years later, Alpert journeyed to India, meeting two relevant

people there: Bhagavan Das, and the man who soon became his guru
—Neem Karoli Baba or “Maharajji” (“Great King”).
Bhagavan Das had grown up in Laguna Beach, California, com-
ing to India on his own in 1964 at age eighteen, and later becoming
one of Ram Dass’ teachers. As Ram himself described their first en-
counter:
I met this guy and there was no doubt in my mind [that he

“knew”]. It was just like meeting a rock. It was just solid, all
the way through. Everywhere I pressed, there he was! (Dass,
1971).
Of course, Dass also considered the Grateful Dead’s Jerry Garcia

to be a “bodhisattva” (Meier, 1992), so “consider the source” in that
regard. And indeed, as if to warn us of the gulf which more often than
not exists between the real state of any guru or teacher, compared
with the pedestal upon which he has been put by his followers, Das
himself, years later (1997), gave his own honest evaluation of his ear-
lier spiritual state:
Ram Dass would describe me [in Be Here Now] as if I were

some kind of enlightened, mythical being. But I was just a lost
child, trying to find my way home to Mother....
Unfortunately, because of my work with Ram Dass and
because I was Maharajji’s sadhu [i.e., ascetic], many of the
[East] Indians were starting to overestimate my powers.
At other times, the boons of such “powers” included Das’ wak-

ing up to a seventeen-year-old blond girl (Swedish) on one side of his
Nepalese cowshed bed, and a silent, young Frenchwoman with long,
black hair on the other side.
In any case, Bhagavan Das soon left that sylvan paradise behind
to drop acid with Alpert in Kathmandu, and then reluctantly road-
tripped with him back to India. He soon introduced that new uptight,
bisexual (and “too interested in him”) friend to Karoli Baba—partly
in the hope of getting rid of him (Das, 1997). To Karoli, Das gave
Alpert’s friend’s Land Rover vehicle, while Alpert himself claims to
have once fed the guru twelve hundred micrograms of LSD—many
times the “safe” dosage—with no apparent effect.
BEEN HERE, DONE THAT, WHAT NOW? 65
Some said they’d seen [Neem Karoli Baba’s] body grow really
huge, and others claimed they’d seen him shrink down very
small. And then there were those who swore they’d seen him
[as an incarnation of the monkey god Hanuman] with a tail
(Das, 1997).
[Neem Karoli Baba] is God; he knows everything (in Muker-

jee, 1996).
Of course, such high reviews of Maharajji naturally came from

very hero-worshiping angles. By contrast, Andrew Cohen’s former
guru, H. W. L. Poonja, offered a perspective on the same sagely indi-
vidual which is either more balanced, or more unbalanced, as may be
left for the reader to judge:
When I had asked [Poonja] what his opinion was of the now
famous deceased guru Neem Karoli Baba, he went on to de-
scribe in detail about how he had met him and that he knew
that he was completely insane and “mad,” but that many peo-
ple mistook his insanity for Enlightenment.... Several years
later [following Cohen’s and Poonja’s bitter separation] when
devotees of Neem Karoli would go to [Poonja] he would praise
him as the highest (Cohen, 1992).
The following story, from a female disciple of Baba, does noth-

ing to settle the question as to insanity versus enlightenment:
The first time he took me in the room alone I sat up on the

tucket [a low wooden bed] with him, and he was like a seven-
teen-year-old jock who was a little fast! I felt as if I were fif-
teen and innocent. He started making out with me, and it was
so cute, so pure. I was swept into it for a few moments—then
grew alarmed: “Wait! This is my guru. One doesn’t do this
with one’s guru!” So I pulled away from him. Then Maharajji
tilted his head sideways and wrinkled up his eyebrows in a
tender, endearing, quizzical look. He didn’t say anything, but
his whole being was saying to me, “Don’t you like me?”
But as soon as I walked out of that particular darshan [the
blessing which is said to flow from even the mere sight of a
saint], I started getting so sick that by the end of the day I felt I
had vomited and shit out everything that was ever inside me. I
had to be carried out of the ashram. On the way, we stopped by
Maharajji’s room so I could pranam [i.e., offer a reverential
greeting] to him. I kneeled by the tucket and put my head
down by his feet—and he kicked me in the head, saying, “Get
her out of here!”....
That was the first time, and I was to be there for two
years. During my last month there, I was alone with him every
day in the room.... Sometimes he would just touch me on the
breasts and between my legs, saying, “This is mine, this is
mine, this is mine. All is mine. You are mine.” You can inter-
pret it as you want, but near the end in these darshans, it was
as though he were my child. Sometimes I felt as though I were
suckling a tiny baby (in Dass, 1979).
Of course, devoted disciples of the homoerotic pedophile Rama-

krishna viewed his “divine” motherly/suckling tendencies just as
positively.
At any rate, after a mere few months at the feet of Neem Karoli
Baba, Ram Dass returned to the U.S. at Karoli’s behest, to teach.
Hilda [Charlton] referred to [Ram Dass] as the “doorway of

enlightenment for America,” incarnated for the age, having
once been one of the Seven Sages on the order of Vishwami-
tra: a full master (Brooke, 1999).
Beginning in 1974, at the height of his fame, Dass spent a good

amount of time with a female spiritual leader in New York City: Joya
Santana (now Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati), a claimed stigmatist and fel-
low follower of Karoli Baba. As Ram himself tells the story:
Joya kept reiterating that she had come to Earth only to be an

instrument for my preparation as a world spiritual leader and
that ultimately she would sit at my feet....
Joya further professed to be the Divine Mother herself
(Dass and Levine, 1977).
That Mother image evidently did not, however, couple suffi-

ciently with Dass’ psychological training in Oedipal complexes and
the like, to prevent the predictable from allegedly occurring between

Joya and him:
He even found a convoluted way to justify a sexual relation-

ship with Joya [which she insists did not occur], despite the
fact that she required all of her students to take a strict vow of
celibacy and publicly took one herself. Joya professed no
physical desires, and Ram Dass willingly accepted her expla-
nation that by having sex together, she was actually teaching
him to become just as unattached to physical desire as she
claimed she was (Schwartz, 1996).
That reported “thrill of learning,” unfortunately, was not to last:
There were just too many “signals,” like the moment Joya and
I were hanging out and the telephone rang. She picked up the
receiver and in a pained whisper said, “I can’t talk now, I’m
too stiff” [i.e., in samadhi], and let the receiver drop. Then
without hesitation she continued our conversation as if nothing
had happened. I realized how many times I had been at the
other end of the phone....
I began to see the similarity between what I was experi-
encing and the stories I had heard about other movements,
such as Reverend Moon’s group, the so-called Jesus Freaks,
and the Krishna-consciousness scene. Each seemed a total real-
ity that made involvement a commitment which disallowed
change....
It seemed that [Joya’s] incredible energies came not
solely from spiritual sources but were [allegedly] enhanced by
energizing pills. Her closest confidants now confessed many
times they were ordered to call me to report terrible cries [sic]
they knew to be untrue. They complied because Joya had con-
vinced them that it was for my own good.
Such stories of deception came thick and fast. I had been
had (Dass and Levine, 1977).
In happier days, the married Bhagavan Das too had, for a time,
been part of the same energetic “scene” with Joya:
We were having a huge meeting and Joya said, “Bhagavan

Das, stand up!” I stood up and she said, “Shivaya stand up!
Shivaya, take Bhagavan Das to a whorehouse right now!” The

next thing I knew I was in a whorehouse in Manhattan on
Christmas Day (Das, 1997).
“It’s a Wonderful Life.”
***
So where are they now?

Well, Neem Karoli Baba passed away in the autumn of 1973.
Ram Dass himself sadly suffered a serious stroke in 1997, pro-
viding him with the personal background to complete a touching and
(thankfully) relatively non-mystical book on aging—Still Here.
The sixty-something Joya, in no danger of “sitting at Ram Dass’
feet” at any point in the near future, continues her teaching activities
at her own Kashi Ashram in Florida. That environment itself, along
with its “Ma,” has been uncomplimentarily profiled numerous times
in various local, regional and national newspapers and magazines
since the mid-’70s, as documented at www.kashiashram.com. Also
see Tobias and Lalich’s (1994) Captive Hearts, Captive Minds.
And what of the “mythical being,” Bhagavan Das, in America?
I ... found myself onstage before thousands of people, I named

babies and blessed people, and people fell at my feet. I felt like
a king with my patrons and movie stars, but I was still a kid, a
guru at twenty-five, sitting on a tiger skin in a Manhattan town
house....
After three years of “spiritual life” that was really a party
[drugs, groupies, etc.], I got sick of it and wanted to be home
with my children. I rejoined the world and [ironically, given
the Land Rover incident] sold used cars in Santa Cruz, I be-
came a businessman, and I gradually lost my sense of [the] di-
vine completely (in Kornfield, 2000).
At one point during that Faustian descent into the business

world, after having experienced a profoundly moving vision of the
crucified Jesus, Das actually became a born-again Christian, thereby
returning to his family’s Episcopalian roots.
I was now officially in Bible college, and I was going to be a

pastor....
I got rid of everything but my Bible, which I worshiped.
I’d go to bed with my Bible, I’d sleep with it, and I’d hug it.
And God woke me up at all different times of the night....
I would go into Denny’s restaurant with my Bible, con-
stantly looking for souls to save. I did nothing but read the Bi-
ble and pray (Das, 1997).
Thence followed Bhagavan’s “speaking in tongues” with his lo-

cal, polyester-wearing congregation. Also followed an affair with a
blond, teenage choir girl “in tight blue jeans,” which got Das—in his
forties at the time—branded and counseled as a “fornicator” by the
church.
None of that latter disrepute, however, could shake the ex-yogi’s
inner peace:
I felt completely saved and totally free. The freedom I had felt
in that tantric sexual experience with the choir girl was like be-
ing with Mary and Jesus (Das, 1997).
Praise! “Gimme that ol’ time religion,” “ménage a Trinity,” etc.

Further, by Das’ own (1997) admission: Alcoholism, AA, a
nearly six-figure income selling insurance, another “wild ‘n’ nekkid”
Scandinavian teenager, and back into smoking pot and doing magic
mushrooms. Finally turned on, tuned in and dropped out of the busi-
ness world, rediscovered himself as “Bhagavan Das” the mystic,
hooked up with another eighteen-year-old girl whom he took as both
a lover and disciple, etc.
All of which, one must admit, is still markedly less eye-popping
—by California standards, at least—than was Das’ earlier cooking of
(energy-transferring) placenta soup for his wife (which she, and he,
ate) after the births of two of their children, during his yogic days.
“Been here, done that ... what now?”
Indeed, “What now?”
CHAPTER IX
SCORPION-MAN
(SATYA SAI BABA)
The words of an aristocratic Indian girl I knew in Delhi rang in

my ears, “You foreigners will accept anyone as a guru—peo-
ple like Maharishi are export items as common as tea, but we
Indians will have nothing to do with them. [The Maharishi,
however, is also a non-brahmin (Mangalwadi, 1992), perhaps
accounting for a large part of the indigenous reluctance to ac-
cept him and his teachings.] There is only one I have heard of
who the Indians trust, he is Sai Baba” (Brooke, 1999).
Swami Amritananda, companion of Bhagavan Ramana Mahar-

shi [1879 – 1950], was convinced that Sri Satya Sai Baba
knew yogic science better than anyone else in his experience
(Kasturi, 1971).
Although Sai Baba only attended school to the age of thirteen,

he has complete mastery of the scriptures, of all the sciences,
arts, languages—of all fields of study. As a matter of fact, he
knows everything—including the past, present and future of all
of our lives (Warner, 1990).
[Sai Baba] says he is an avatar, or the divine prophet of God

for our time (Giuliano, 1989).
The Avatar is one only, and this one body is taken by the Ava-
tar (Sai Baba, in [Hislop, 1978]).
70
SCORPION-MAN 71
By 1963 Baba had begun to claim that he was the incarnation

of Shiva and Shakti.... Since the Westerners have begun to fol-
low him, he has also declared that he is Jesus Christ who has
come again (Mangalwadi, 1992).
[W]hen it became obvious that I was not going to leave this is-
sue [of alleged sexual abuses on the part of Sai Baba] alone, a
couple of [national coordinators] telephoned me to say that yes
I was correct and they had known of this for years. “But he is
God, and God can do anything he likes” (Bailey and Bailey,
2003).
FOR THE PAST HALF CENTURY, Satya Sai Baba has been India’s “most
famous and most powerful holy man” (Brown, 2000), renowned for
his production of vibhuti or “sacred ash,” and for numerous other
claimed materializations of objects “out of thin air.”
Sai Baba was born, allegedly of immaculate conception, in
southern India in 1926.
At the tender age of thirteen, he was stung by a scorpion. Fol-
lowing that, he announced that he was the new incarnation of Shirdi
Sai Baba, a saint who had died eight years before Satya was born.
Some accounts have the previous inhabitant of his body “dying”
from that sting, and Sai Baba’s spirit taking it over at that vacated
point, as opposed to his having been in the body from its conception
or birth. (Adi Da, whom we shall meet later, claims to have been
guided by the same spirit during his sadhana.)
In any case, from those humble, Spider-Man-like beginnings, Sai
Baba has gone on to attract an estimated ten to fifty million followers
worldwide, with an organizational worth of around $6 billion. In-
cluded among those disciples is Isaac Tigrett, co-founder of the Hard
Rock Cafe; the “Love All – Serve All” motto of that chain is a direct
quote from Baba. Also, jazz trumpeter Maynard Ferguson—who has
reportedly pleaded with Sai Baba to heal his progressive hearing fail-
ure, to no avail—and Sarah Ferguson, the former wife of Prince An-
drew.
It is believed that the guru once granted [George] Harrison a

rare personal audience at his Anantapur ashram in India some-
time in the mid-’70s. John and Yoko also met with Sai Baba
around that time. It was from this experience that Lennon later
made the quizzical comment, “Guru is the pop star of India.
Pop stars are the gurus of the West” (Giuliano, 1989).
Interestingly, the late, great jazzman John Coltrane’s second

wife, Alice (now Swami Turiyasangitananda), on the basis of her own
visions, claims that “Sai Baba is described by the Lord as ‘one of my
sacred embodiments’” (Rawlinson, 1997). Coltrane himself had ear-
lier been introduced to the teachings of Krishnamurti by his pianist,
Bill Evans.
***
No “divine prophet of our time” would so descend, of course, without

manifesting numerous “signs and wonders.”
Like Christ, [Sai Baba] is said to have created food to feed

multitudes; to have “appeared” to disciples in times of crisis or
need. There are countless accounts of healings, and at least two
of his having raised people from the dead (Brown, 2000).
The first widespread indications that Sai Baba’s manifestations

might be less than miraculous, however, occurred in the context of a
visit to his ashram by an East Indian prime minister, in which Sai
Baba appeared to materialize a gold watch as a gift.
[W]hen Indian state television workers played back film of the

incident in slow motion, they saw that the miracle was a
sleight-of-hand hoax. The clip was never broadcast in India but
has been widely circulated on videotape there (Kennedy,
2001).
That, of course, would have come as no surprise to any of the

skeptical magicians who have, in the past, questioned and conse-
quently dismissed Sai Baba’s “miraculous” production of sacred ash
and other manifestations:
Examination of films and videotapes of Sai Baba’s actual per-

formances show them to be simple sleight of hand, exactly the
same as the sort used by the other Indian jaduwallahs, or
SCORPION-MAN 73
“street conjurors.” Sai Baba has never submitted to an exami-

nation of his abilities under controls, so his claims are totally
unproven (Randi, 1995).
A formerly devoted, inner circle disciple of Sai Baba has inde-

pendently confirmed all of that. That is, Faye Bailey claims to have
personally seen “rings, watches and other trinkets being palmed, or
pulled out from the side of chair cushions” and “vibhuti tablets held
between [Sai Baba’s] fingers before being crushed and ‘manifest.’”
[Sai Baba’s] major and most advertised “miracle” is the pro-

duction from his apparently empty hand of a substance known
as “vibhuti” (“holy ash”) which turns out on analysis to be
powdered ashes of cow dung mixed with incense. Street conju-
rors in India (jaduwallahs) perform this trick by preparing
small pellets of ashes and concealing them at the base of their
fingers, then working their fists to powder the pellets and pro-
duce the flow of fine ash. Their trick is indistinguishable from
Sai Baba’s miracle (Randi, 2000).
There are fantastic stories going round about Sai Baba’s sup-
posed powers, but in five years searching I have not found one
to be genuine (Bailey and Bailey, 2003).
Beyerstein (1994) has given a further detailed, critical analysis of

Sai Baba’s paranormal claims.
***
The concerns surrounding Sai Baba are not restricted to questions

about the authenticity of his “miracles.” Indeed, as early as 1976, Tal
Brooke (1999) had told the story of his own experiences during two
years as a close disciple of Baba in the late ’60s, before converting to
Christianity:
Baba’s nudging pelvis stopped. Suddenly a hand unzipped my

fly, then, like an adder returning home at dusk, the hand bur-
rowed inside.
With less of a purple (but perhaps more of a tie-dyed) hue, a

friend of Brooke’s further related the following tale, claimed to have
occurred around a year later:
When all the others left and Baba got [Patrick] alone ... the
next thing that happened was that in one smooth motion, Baba
reached down and unzipped Patrick’s fly, and pulled his tool
out....
[H]e worked up a bone all right, and the next thing that
happened is really gonna blow your mind. Baba lifted his robe
and inserted the thing. That’s right. Maybe he’s got a woman’s
organ and a man’s organ down there. Yeah, a hermaphrodite.
But he honestly inserted it. Patrick said it felt just like a
woman.
More serious are the guru’s alleged interests in young boys:
Conny Larsson, a well-known Swedish film actor, says that not

only did Sai Baba make homosexual advances towards him,
but he was also told by young male disciples of advances the
guru had made on them (Brown, 2000).
Larsson himself claims that the guru regularly practiced oral sex
on him—and asked for it in return—over a five-year period. “By
1986, Mr. Larsson had talked to many young male devotees, most of
them attractive blond Westerners, who told him they too had had sex
with Sai Baba” (B. Harvey, 2000a). He says he now receives twenty
to thirty emails a day from victims “crying out for help” (Brown,
2000).
Hans de Kraker ... who first visited Sai Baba’s ashram in 1992,
said the guru would regularly rub oil on his genitals, claiming
it was a religious cleansing, and eventually tried to force him
to perform oral sex (P. Murphy, 2000).
Another sixteen-year-old boy whose parents were both Sai devo-

tees told his story to them:
Sai Baba, he said, had kissed him, fondled him and attempted
to force him to perform oral sex, explaining that it was for “pu-
SCORPION-MAN 75
rification.” On almost every occasion Sai Baba had given him

gifts of watches, rings, trinkets and cash, in total around
$10,000. He had told him to say nothing to his parents....
In 1998 [i.e., at age eighteen], according to [the boy], Sai
Baba attempted to rape him (Brown, 2000).
None of the above allegations, however, have unduly swayed the

faith of those close to Sai Baba:
[British Columbia Sai Baba president Nami] Thiyagaratnam ...

says he’s not surprised that people are trying to ruin the reputa-
tion of such a wondrous man. After all, he says, people also
persecuted Jesus Christ and Buddha (Todd, 2001).
Dr. Michael Goldstein, the influential U.S. president of the Sai

Baba organization, this year dismissed all the accusations. He
says they’re unbelievable and that Sai Baba remains divinely
pure, filled only with “selfless love.” The answer for those
who doubt, says Goldstein, is to show more faith (Todd, 2001).
Or, as Baba himself put it (in Dass, 1971):
The influence of the Guru is obstructed by mental activity, by

reliance on one’s own exertions and by every kind of self-
consciousness and self-exertion.
Sai Baba is reported to have said recently to his devotees:

“Never try to understand me” (Harpur, 2001).
The head of at least one overseas arm of the Sai organization

correspondingly refuses to warn families taking children to Baba’s
ashram in Puttaparthi, about the reports of pedophilia.
Sai Baba, who hardly ever grants media interviews, alluded to

the allegations himself at an address last year, saying, “Some
devotees seem to be disturbed over these false statements.
They are not true devotees at all” (Goldberg, 2001).
Being “God,” after all, means never having to say you’re sorry.
CHAPTER X
EVEN IF
IT HAPPENED....
(SWAMI RAMA)
SWAMI RAMA WAS SUPPOSEDLY BORN in 1925, and allegedly grew

up as an orphan in northern India. He was soon reportedly adopted
there by “one of the greatest masters of the Himalayas,” Bengali
Baba.
At the age of twenty-four, the story goes that he was given the
position of Shankaracharya of Karvirpitham—one of four “popes” in
the Hindu religious hierarchy. A mere two years later, however, he
apparently simply abandoned that position, leaving without notice to
meditate in the mountains instead.
Rama also claimed to have later studied in Hamburg, Utrecht
and at Oxford University. It turns out (Webster, 1990), however, that
significant elements in the official biography of the swami may well
have been merely “pulled out of thin air.”
In any case, Rama definitely came to the United States in 1969,
and was soon participating in biofeedback demonstrations under
Elmer and Alyce Green, at the Menninger Foundation in Topeka,
Kansas. There, he showed the ability to consciously control various
aspects of his autonomic (involuntary) nervous system.
In 1971, the swami founded the Himalayan International Insti-
tute—“HI,” publisher of Yoga International magazine—in Illinois,
76
EVEN IF IT HAPPENED.... 77
with the goal of translating ancient spiritual wisdom into contempo-

rary terms. By 1977, that organization had moved to an ashram in the
Pocono Mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, capable of housing
more than one hundred residents and guests, along with their Institute
headquarters.
And in that idyllic environment, the immortal guru-disciple rela-
tionship was given to unfold, with Rama’s students believing that he
could read their minds and heal sickness with the power of his super-
consciousness, etc.
That, though, is exactly par for the course: for the disciples to
think any less of the guru would make them “disloyal,” riddled with
mayic doubt.
***
In December of 1990, Yoga Journal published an exposé detailing

allegations of misbehavior, including sexual abuse, against Rama.
One of the women involved further described a public, non-
sexual encounter with the sage. There, the swami allegedly put a dog
collar and leash around a woman’s neck, walking her around for the
amusement of the other loyal followers present. He was also accused
of kicking other women in the buttocks when they were weeding, al-
ready down on their hands and knees (Webster, 1990).
Pandit Rajmani Tigunait, at the time the resident spiritual direc-
tor of the Honesdale ashram and a member of the Institute’s teaching
staff, reportedly responded (in Webster, 1990) to the allegations of
sexual abuse in this way:
Even if it happened, what’s the big deal? People say that Ma-
hatma Gandhi slept with women. God knows whether it was
true or not, and even if it was true, this is a normal phenome-
non....
Even if I found out—how can I find out? Because I do
not want to find out. There’s no need for finding out, if I know
it is completely wrong.
The reported reaction of Swami Rama’s community to the wom-

en asserting improprieties on his part was further exactly as one
would expect. That is, they were allegedly discounted as being “emo-
tionally disturbed,” or otherwise reportedly regarded as “liars” (Web-

ster, 1990).
***
As Tigunait noted above, Mahatma Gandhi was indeed sleeping with

teenage girls (including his cousin’s granddaughter) toward the end of
his life. As odd as it may sound, however, all reports are that the two
parties were literally just sleeping beside each other, for him to test
his resistance to sexual desire.
In explaining his position, Gandhiji said that it was indeed true

that he permitted women workers to use his bed, this being un-
dertaken as a spiritual experiment at times. Even if there were
no trace of passion in him of which he was conscious, it was
not unlikely that a residue might be left over, and that would
make trouble for the girls who took part in his experiment [cf.
“In the presence of one perfected in non-violence, enmity (in
any creature) does not arise”—Patanjali, Yoga Sutras] (Bose,
1974).
The possible psychological effects of that on the girls them-

selves, even without any breach of his brahmacharya celibacy vow,
does not seem to have concerned the Mahatma.
Of course, Gandhi’s very human displays of (non-righteous)
temper alone would have been enough to demonstrate to him or any-
one else that he was not yet perfected in ahimsa. Those eruptions
were indeed reported by his one-time secretary, N. K. Bose, a distin-
guished anthropologist who resigned the former secretarial position in
part because of his objections to the Mahatma’s above “experiments.”
Gandhi’s own admitted “detestation of sensual connection,” too, is a
type of psychological violence upon himself. For, when it comes to
metaphysical questions regarding attachment, repulsion is no better
than is attraction.
Both Chapter XVIII of Bose’s (1974) My Days with Gandhi and
Chapter 4 in Koestler’s (1960) The Lotus and the Robot give reason-
able analyses of the all-too-human psychological reasons behind
Gandhi’s emphasis on celibacy. Included in those is the Mahatma’s
abandoning of his father on the latter’s deathbed to be with his young
EVEN IF IT HAPPENED.... 79
wife sexually, thus being absent from the old man’s death, for which
he never forgave himself.
Koestler also covers Gandhi’s disappointing treatment of his
children, in the same book. That handling included the Mahatma’s
denying of a professional education to his oldest sons, in the attempt
to mold them in his image. The eldest was later disowned by the
“Great Soul” for having gotten married against his father’s prohibi-
tions; and died an alcoholic wreck, after having been publicly at-
tacked by Gandhi for his involvement in a business scandal.
Why then are the stories of the Mahatma’s “experiments with
teenage girls” not more widely known?
The Gandhians were so thorough in effacing every trace of the

scandal that Bose’s book is unobtainable not only in India, but
also at the British Museum (Koestler, 1960).
***
Swami Rama passed away in 1996, being survived by, it has been
suggested, at least one child (Webster, 1990).
In the autumn of 1997, Pennsylvania jurors awarded $1.875 mil-
lion in damages to a former female resident of the Himalayan Institute
in Honesdale, PA. The woman in question claimed to have been sexu-
ally assaulted by Rama a full thirty times over a Yogic Summer of
Love in the early ’90s. At the time, she was a nineteen-year-old vir-
gin, just out of high school. Yet, as reported by Phelps (1997), the
Institute allegedly “did nothing to stop” that claimed abuse, even
though having reportedly been informed not only of those alleged
assaults but of similar complaints registered by other female disciples.
Pandit Tigunait, who accepted Rama as his guru when just a
child in India, is now the “spiritual head of the Himalayan Institute,”
and the acknowledged “spiritual successor” to Swami Rama there.
“Even if it happened....”
CHAPTER XI
MO’ CHIN-UPS
(SRI CHINMOY)
Sri Chinmoy is a fully realized spiritual Master dedicated to

inspiring and serving those seeking a deeper meaning in life
(Chinmoy, 1985).
Sect members believe that Chinmoy is an “avatar” (Eisenstadt,

1993).
A NATIVE OF BANGLADESH, Chinmoy Kumar Ghose arrived in the

United States in 1964, having previously lived for two decades at the
Sri Aurobindo Ashram in India. Three years later, he started his own
Aum meditation center in Queens, New York.
Once described by the Wall Street Journal as “the stunt man of
the spiritual world,” Chinmoy has earned that appellation many times
over, via numerous demonstrated “feats of strength.”
The Supreme doesn’t want you to be satisfied with fifty me-

ters. He wants you to run fifty-one meters, fifty-two meters,
fifty-four meters.... Otherwise, if you always aim at the same
goal, it becomes monotonous (Chinmoy, in [Jackson, 1996]).
Weight-lifting is “the perfect analogy to the spiritual life,” ex-

plains one devotee. “As the dead weight is lifted up, so also a
80
MO’ CHIN-UPS 81
person’s lower, unilluminated being can be lifted to a level of

increased peace, light, and delight” (Rae, 1991).
Chimoy’s publicized weight-lifting stunts (aided by a Nautilus-

like machine which does most of the work) have included:
• Lifting one thousand sheep (four at a time) in Australia

• Raising a Piper Arrow aircraft while balanced on one leg
• Hoisting the prime minister of Iceland, two San Francisco
49ers, four Nobel laureates, comedian Eddie Murphy (speak-
ing of “dead weight”), the Reverend Jesse Jackson, a Ford
pickup, an elephant and a small schoolhouse (separately)
into the air. Also, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Muham-
mad Ali, Susan Sarandon, Jeff Goldblum, Yoko Ono, Sting
and Richard Gere (separately)
Nor are the man’s quantitative accomplishments limited to

weight-lifting. Rather, if Chinmoy’s followers are to be believed, the
man has written at least 1200 books, 62,000 poems and 14,000 songs.
In 1974 he wrote 360 poems in twenty-four hours, then the

next year batted out 843 verses in a single day. In one hundred
days from November 1974 to February 1975 he completed
10,000 “works of art”—pen-and-inks, abstract acrylics, water-
colors (Jackson, 1996).
Indeed, by the “avatar’s” own count, he has produced over four

million drawings of birds, and a total of more than 150,000 paintings.
Chinmoy is in his seventies, so four million drawings would
work out to over 150 per day, every day—or one every ten minutes, if
he had done nothing during a sleepless life except “draw birds.”
Impressive. Indeed, to do all that and still find time for medita-
tion or working out would almost require more than twenty-four
hours in a day.
Such record-setting “for God” seems to have rubbed off on at
least one disciple of Chinmoy’s, a Mr. Ashrita Furman, whose activi-
ties have included
simultaneous jogging and juggling (six hours, seven minutes:

three balls); long-distance somersaulting (12.3 miles) along the
same route Paul Revere took through Boston; and underwater
pogo-sticking (three hours, forty minutes) in the Amazon River
(Areddy, 1989).
For the latter stunt, “a lookout was posted to keep watch for pi-
ranhas.”
As to the spiritual advancement and years of meditation underly-
ing his own evinced productivity and demonstrated strength, Chin-
moy (1978) explains:
After one has realized the Highest and become consciously one
with the Absolute Supreme, one has no need to pray or medi-
tate. But I have a number of disciples, so I meditate for them as
I used to meditate for myself many years ago.
Chinmoy further leaves no doubt as to his own importance in ef-

fecting his disciples’ evolution:
The Guru has the power to nullify the law of karma for his dis-
ciple (Chinmoy, 1985).
Without a guru, your progress will be very slow and uncer-

tain....
The best type of meditation comes when you enter into
my consciousness by looking at a picture taken of me when I
am in a high meditative consciousness (Chinmoy, 1978).
***
Chinmoy himself is a prolific musical entertainer. Indeed, if his press

kit is to be believed, the man has “chakrad out,” in close to three hun-
dred concerts, with nearly half a million people in thirty countries
over the past twenty years.
This is noteworthy because Chinmoy and his supporters con-

cede that he is not a gifted musician; he sometimes makes mis-
takes and starts over, and generally improvises the melodies on
the spot (Galloway, 1991).
MO’ CHIN-UPS 83
Concert venues have included the Royal Albert Hall of London,

Carnegie Hall, Tokyo’s Nippon Budokan—made famous in the West
by Cheap Trick in the 1970s—and the Sydney Opera House.
According to Chinmoy’s website, his own personal record for
“most instruments in a single concert,” playing music to soothe the
savage chakras—purported subtle energy centers in the human body
—is now up to 150.
There is some music that is really destructive to our inner be-

ing. This music comes from the gross physical or the lower vi-
tal. Undivine music tries to awaken our lower vital conscious-
ness and throw us into a world of excitement (Chinmoy, 1978).
Given that, it is interesting to note that Chinmoy’s devotees have

included Sheena Easton and Grammy-winning musician and “guitar
god” Carlos Santana who, with his wife, devotedly followed Chinmoy
for nine years, from 1972 to 1981. Also, Clarence “Born to Blow”
Clemons (Bruce Springsteen’s sax man) and Roberta Flack.
“My guru takes the morning train....”
***
Chinmoy claims up to seven thousand disciples worldwide, formerly

including the late Zen Master Rama, or Frederick Lenz. (Lenz’s first
book was dedicated to Chinmoy, prior to their split.) His reported
teachings on the relation of sex to spirituality for those students are
unequivocal:
In order to have Self-realization, celibacy is absolutely neces-

sary....
God-realization and the sex life are like the combination
of sugar and salt. If we try to put them together we cannot taste
either....
Those who are really advanced find that lower vital ne-
cessity does not enter into them. For them the life of pleasure
is replaced by the life of real joy. And naturally, once realiza-
tion takes place temptation can never assail them (in Ross,
2003d; italics added).
Such a position, however, stands in contrast to the numerous al-

legations of sexual misconduct made against the guru himself, raised
via the Testimonials section on the www.chinmoycult.com website. It
likewise does not square with the following allegations:
Some of his followers left ... amid accusations that Chinmoy

was making sexual advances toward the wives of his disciples
(Occhiogrosso, 1996).
Anne Carlton, a former member for twenty years, told The

[New York] Post Ghose [i.e., Chinmoy] summoned her for
sexual encounters over two extended periods—one in 1991
and another in 1996.
Then, in 2000, Ghose [allegedly] called her at work and
told her to have sex with another female disciple while he
watched (Ginsberg, 2004).
Chinmoy, through his lawyer, has denied those sexual allega-

tions.
Of course, with the man’s penchant for “quantity over quality”—
i.e., “mo’ is better”—one almost expects to hear Paul Bunyon-esque
tales/allegations of sexual conquest, too. For example, of having slept
with 1200 women in a twenty-four hour period while continuously
playing the kazoo and sketching thousands of images of assorted wa-
terfowl, etc.
And what did Chinmoy himself have to say about behaviors such
as he has been accused of?
[S]o-called human weaknesses are one thing; but if the Master

indulges in lower vital life, sex life, then that Master is very
bad and you have to leave him (Chinmoy, 1985).
The Guru has to be a perfect example of what he teaches. His

outer being has to be the perfect example of what he is saying.
Otherwise he is not a Guru.... The responsibility of a Guru is
tremendous. If the Guru is not a perfect example of his teach-
ings, then he is not a true Guru. He is what in the medical
world they call a “quack” (in Ross, 2003d).
MO’ CHIN-UPS 85
Well, if it looks like a duck, meditates like a duck, and lifts

weights like a duck....
***
Carlos Santana, for one, no longer has any connection with Chinmoy
or his community.
After leaving the group it seems Sri Chinmoy “was pretty vin-
dictive,” recalls Santana. “He told all my friends not to call me
ever again, because I was to drown in the dark sea of ignorance
for leaving him” (Heath, 2000).
Or, as Santana—Mr. Supernatural himself, whose strong sympa-

thies for Eastern philosophy persist to this day—put it in the same
Rolling Stone interview, when speaking of Chinmoy’s path: “This shit
is not for me.”
Now that’s mo’ like it!
CHAPTER XII
THAI SURPRISE
Confucius say, “Man who go through airport turnstile side-

ways going to Bangkok.”
APPROXIMATELY 95% OF THE SIXTY-FIVE MILLION CITIZENS of Thai-

land (capital, Bangkok) are Buddhists.
More than 350,000 monks and novices live in Thailand’s 35,000
temples—ten monks for every temple, on average. Tenets enjoindered
on those devout monks include strict injunctions never to touch in-
toxicants or women.
Clearly, such restrictions would not constitute an easy or exciting
life.
As if to break such monotony, then, we have the renunciant
monk who proudly exhibited over sixty vintage cars—many of them
Mercedes-Benzes. Some of those were donated, others were pur-
chased with money from his temple treasury, with the claimed in-
vestment intention (though questionable business acumen) of opening
a museum to benefit that church.
There was also the monk “caught on camera wearing a wig and
enjoying a nightlife of loud karaoke singing, boozing and other taboo
acts” (Ehrlich, 2000).
There was, further, the highly respected former Buddhist monk,
accused of possible embezzlement of funds, who stepped down as
spiritual adviser to the prime minister. That, after having also been
accused of having sex with some of his female followers and living a
86
THAI SURPRISE 87
lavish lifestyle. “His monastery came complete with the latest sound
equipment, elaborate furnishings and luxury cars” (PlanetSave, 2001).
There was the deputy abbot who was recorded, in fine voice, en-
gaging in phone sex with women (Thompson, 2000).
There were the monks accused of selling amphetamines and of
hiring some of the country’s 700,000 prostitutes (Economist, 2000).
“Two girls for every monk.”
There was the Chivas Regal-drinking, Mercedes-driving abbot
who was disrobed for allegedly ... er, disrobing. With two women at
the same time. Two nights in a row. While impersonating an army
special forces colonel—a serious crime.
A subsequent search of the holy man’s private residence turned
up pornographic materials, lingerie and condoms. As well it should,
for a monk who was renowned among local law-enforcement officials
for going out on the town nearly every night.
There was also, by abstinent contrast, the forty-year-old Bud-
dhist monk who, as a protest against the sufferings of those in his
country, planned to immolate himself on the steps of the Burmese
embassy in Bangkok.
As he spoke, I discovered an astonishing thing: although he

planned to take his life to protest the great injustices he had
fought against for many years, this was not the real reason for
his decision. The true reason was that he had fallen in love
with this young girl. He had been in monk’s robes since age
fourteen and for twenty-nine years he had given his life to the
order. He had no other skills and couldn’t imagine himself
married, with a family, yet he loved her. He did not know what
to do, so burning himself for political reasons seemed the best
way out (Kornfield, 1993).
There was—speaking of burning—the Thai monk who grue-

somely roasted babies—already dead babies, thankfully—hoping to
utilize the oil collected from them in magical ceremonies. That was
done with the intention of creating a “babyish ghost,” to be employed
in the black magic manipulation of others (Ehrlich, 2000).
There was, even more horribly, the monk accused of raping an
eleven-year-old girl.
There was the Buddhist abbot arrested for the alleged murder of
a woman whose remains were discovered floating in the septic tank at
the house of a neighbor (Ehrlich, 2000).
There was, finally, the monk caught committing necrophilia in a
coffin beneath his temple’s crematorium.
Thai surprise.
CHAPTER XIII
BATTLEFIELD
TEEGEEACK
(SCIENTOLOGY)
Scientology is the one and only road to total freedom and total
power (L. Ron Hubbard, in [Burroughs, 1995]).
Werner Erhard, of est fame, called L. Ron Hubbard the “great-

est philosopher of the twentieth century” (Corydon and
Hubbard, 1998).
Among the many affirmations that Hubbard was known to

have used was the following:
All men shall be my slaves! All women shall suc-

cumb to my charms! All mankind shall grovel at my
feet and not know why! (Wakefield, 1991).
As religious zealots, Scientologists exceed any that have gone

before. They have not simply a deep faith that theirs is The
Way. They can present a comprehensible whole; an all-
embracing answer to many of the problems that beset human-
ity (Vosper, 1997).
89
[Scientology is] the sole agency in existence today that can

forestall the erasure of all civilization or bring a new better one
(L. Ron Hubbard, in [Wallis, 1976]).
SCIENTOLOGY (LIKE ITS PRECURSOR, DIANETICS) WAS FOUNDED in

the 1950s by pulp/science fiction writer Lafayette Ron Hubbard, who
(dubiously) traced the religion’s origins to the sacred Hindu Vedas,
and further claimed to be the reincarnation of the Buddha.
Hubbard has been presented, in publications for advanced stu-

dents, as the Maitreya Buddha supposedly prophesied to ap-
pear by Gautama Buddha (Wallis, 1976).
Most of Hubbard’s thousands of followers regarded him as

more brilliant than Einstein, more enlightened than Buddha,
and quite as capable of miracles as Christ (Atack, 1990).
L. Ron was correspondingly viewed by his devoted disciples as

being the only one who could “save the world” (Miller, 1987).
But save the world ... from what?
Evidently, from the high-level Scientology teaching that seventy
million years ago, our Earth—called Teegeeack, then—was featured
in a galaxy-wide federation oppressed by one Xenu (or Xemu), an
evil titan (played by the strictly heterosexual John Travolta). Faced
with the problem of overpopulation, Xenu had gathered up the ne’er-
do-wells from his empire—among them Jenna Elfman, Narconon (see
Ross [2004b]; Penny [1993]) spokesperson Kirstie Alley, and the late
Sonny Bono. He next confined those individuals in terrestrial volca-
noes, and utilized nuclear bombs to explode the latter (and the for-
mer). The spirits (“thetans”) of those formerly intact beings were then
collected, imprisoned in frozen alcohol, and implanted into human
beings.
And that, as even the formerly dyslexic, loyal Scientologist Tom
Cruise could plainly see and understand, is the cause of all human
suffering. Such deeply rooted pain, however, can thankfully be allevi-
ated through Scientology’s “auditing” procedures—those being aided
by a simplified lie detector called an E-meter. Indeed, through that
expensive practice, Scientology “promises to heal the psychic scars
caused by traumas in present or past lives” (Richardson, 1993).
BATTLEFIELD TEEGEEACK 91
The claimed seven million worldwide followers of Scientology

have reportedly included jazz pianist Chick Corea, jazz singer Al Jar-
reau, pop star Beck, Priscilla Presley, and the voice of Bart Simpson,
Nancy Cartwright. (Ironically, Bart’s sister is Lisa Marie, named after
Priscilla’s daughter; and the real Lisa Marie is herself, along with
Priscilla, active in Scientology.) Also, Travolta’s wife Kelly Preston,
Cruise’s ex-wife Mimi Rogers, the late Aldous Huxley—who re-
ceived auditing from Hubbard himself—and Richard de Mille (son of
director Cecil). Jerry Seinfeld, Patrick Swayze and Brad Pitt have also
“drifted through” Scientology (Richardson, 1993); as have Mikhail
Baryshnikov, Van Morrison, Emilio Estevez, Rock Hudson, Demi
Moore, Candice Bergen, Isaac Hayes, Mensa member Sharon Stone
and O. J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark. Plus, as of 1970, it was
claimed that Tennessee Williams, Leonard Cohen, Mama Cass Elliot,
Jim Morrison “and possibly the Beatles” were Scientologists (Cooper,
1971). The great jazz pianist Dave Brubeck, too, believed that Scien-
tology’s processing had aided his musical career (Evans, 1973).
Charles Manson likewise apparently undertook around 150 hours
of auditing while in prison (Atack, 1990). There, he reportedly
reached the celebrated level of “Clear,” prior to his mass-murdering
phase (Krassner, 1993).
The imprisoned Manson was actually later doused with gasoline
and set on fire by a fellow inmate, an ex-Hare Krishna—who himself
had been convicted of killing his own abortion-performing father—
following Manson’s endless taunting of him for his in-jail chanting
and prayers (Muster, 1997).
In more recent years, Dustin Hoffman and Goldie Hawn both
signed an open letter to the chancellor of Germany, protesting dis-
crimination against Scientologists there and hyperbolically comparing
their treatment to that of Jews during World War II (Bart, 1998).
Be that as it may, the cravat-wearing Hubbard himself suffered
no such imagined Holocaust, instead maintaining his own set of privi-
leged, teenaged female “messengers.” Those cheerleader-beautiful
blond girls, vying for the geriatric Hubbard’s attention, had designed
their own uniform, consisting of hot pants, halter tops, bobbysox and
platform sandals. Their envied duties reportedly included washing
Hubbard’s hair, giving him massages, and helping him dress and un-
dress (Miller, 1987).
“A man could get religion.”
Yet, the life of a messenger was not all fun and estrogen-fuelled
games:
[Hubbard] got mad at a messenger once ... because she over-

spent some money on an errand, so they took away everyone’s
supply of toilet paper for ten days (in Corydon and Hubbard,
1998).
Nor was LRH’s interest in the financial and anal activities of

others limited to pulse-quickening teenage girls:
Homosexuality is outlawed; Hubbard insisted that the Emo-

tional Tone Level of a homosexual is “covert hostility”: they
are backstabbers, each and every one (Atack, 1990).
“Ron’s” tolerance for equality in other areas seems to have been

no higher:
I don’t see that popular measures ... and democracy have done
anything for Man but push him further into the mud ... democ-
racy has given us inflation and income tax (in Corydon and
Hubbard, 1998).
In spite of such demeaning from above, the reported attitude of

devoted members toward their source of salvation is exactly as one
would expect:
Scientologists believe that their survival as spiritual beings is

totally dependent upon remaining in good graces with the
Church (Corydon and Hubbard, 1998).
[I]t was well rumored in Scientology that to leave with an in-

complete level of auditing could result in death within twelve
days (Wakefield, 1996).
In earlier times, Hubbard’s dabbling in black magick with re-

nowned chemist Jack Parsons had caused no less than Aleister Crow-
ley—the self-proclaimed “Beast 666”—to remark:
Apparently Parsons and Hubbard or somebody is producing a

moonchild. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of
these louts (in Corydon and Hubbard, 1998).
Bringing a welcomed level head to all of that, however, “Super-

man” Christopher Reeve described (2002) his own experiences within
Scientology, including his common-sense method of evaluating their
auditing procedures:
[M]y growing skepticism about Scientology and my training as

an actor took over. With my eyes closed, I gradually began to
remember details from a devastating past life experience that
had happened in ancient Greece....
I could tell that my auditor was deeply moved by my
story and trying hard to maintain her professional demeanor. I
sensed that she was making a profound connection between
guilt over the death of my father when I was a Greek warrior in
a past life and my relationship with my father in the present.
And that was the end of my training as a Scientologist.
My story was actually a slightly modified account of an an-
cient Greek myth.... I didn’t expect my auditor to be familiar
with Greek mythology; I was simply relying on her ability, as-
sisted by the E-meter, to discern the truth. The fact that I got
away with a blatant fabrication completely devalued my belief
in the process.
Others have come to even less complimentary evaluations of

Scientology. Indeed, years earlier, in 1965, the Australian Board of
Inquiry into Scientology had produced a report opining that “Scien-
tology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the
community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents sadly
deluded and often mentally ill” (in Miller, 1987). The same report
criticized the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International,
created by “Ron” in London in 1952, as being allegedly “the world’s
largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of
dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy” (in
Miller, 1987). (Fellow science fiction writer Isaac Asimov had earlier
dismissed Hubbard’s Dianetics as being “gibberish” [in Miller, 1987].
The “science of the mind” received no better reviews from Martin
Gardner, in his [1957] Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.)
In a May, 1991, cover story (Behar, 1991), Time magazine fur-

ther described Scientology as allegedly being “a hugely profitable
global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a
Mafia-like manner.”
The following books have given much additional disturbing de-
tail as to the alleged nature of life within and around Scientology:
• Jon Atack (1990), A Piece of Blue Sky

• Paulette Cooper (1971), The Scandal of Scientology. Also
see her (1997) diaries. After having been sued eighteen times
by the Church, to get a settlement Cooper reportedly “prom-
ised she would not republish the [former, Scandal] book and
signed a statement saying fifty-two passages in it were ‘mis-
leading’” (Rudin and Rudin, 1980)
• Russell Miller (1987), Bare-Faced Messiah
• Robert Kaufman (1995), Inside Scientology/Dianetics
• Cyril Vosper (1997), The Mind-Benders
• George Malko (1970), Scientology: The Now Religion.
Malko’s book was reportedly later “withdrawn by its pub-
lishers who also paid a legal settlement” (Wallis, 1976)
• Monica Pignotti (1989), My Nine Lives in Scientology
• Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (1998), L. Ron Hub-
bard: Messiah or Madman?
• Margery Wakefield (1991), Understanding Scientology;
(1993), The Road to Xenu; and her (1996) autobiography,
Testimony
• Bob Penny (1993), Social Control in Scientology
• For more, see the www.factnet.org website
The aforementioned Behar (1991) further alleged:
One of Hubbard’s policies was that all perceived enemies are

“fair game” and subject to being “tricked, sued or lied to or de-
stroyed.” Those who criticize the church—journalists, doctors,
lawyers and even judges—often find themselves engulfed in
litigation, stalked by private eyes, framed for fictional crimes,

beaten up or threatened with death.
Others have made similar claims:
The Church of Scientology is not known for its willingness to

take what it construes as criticism without recourse. Indeed its
record of litigation must surely be without parallel in the mod-
ern world (Wallis, 1976).
Hubbard has stated, as if invoking a Voodoo curse, that anyone

rash enough to take action against Scientology is guaranteeing
unto himself an incurable insanity followed by a painful death
(Vosper, 1997).
After her first article on Scientology, in 1968, [Paulette] Coo-

per received a flood of death threats and smear letters; her
phone was bugged; lawsuits were filed against her; attempts
were made to break into her apartment; and she was framed for
a bomb threat (Atack, 1990).
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul G. Breckenridge dis-

closed his own disturbing impressions in the mid-1980s:
The [Scientology] organization clearly is schizophrenic and

paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection
of its founder. The evidence portrays a man [i.e., Hubbard]
who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his
history, background and achievements. The writings and
documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed,
avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness
against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile (in
Miller, 1987).
Justice Latey’s opinion of the organization, as expressed in his

1984 London High Court ruling, was no higher:
Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious ... it is

corrupt, sinister and dangerous (in Atack, 1990).
Likewise for Conway and Siegelman’s (1982) published view:
According to those who responded to our survey ... Scientol-

ogy’s may be the most debilitating set of rituals of any [al-
leged] cult in America.
After a survey of forty-eight groups, Conway and Siegelman

reported that former Scientologists had the highest rate of vio-
lent outbursts, hallucinations, sexual dysfunction and suicidal
tendencies. They estimated that full recovery from Scientology
averaged at [nearly] 12.5 years (Atack, 1992).
More recently, a wrongful-death lawsuit was brought (and set-

tled out of court in 2004) by the estate of former member Lisa
McPherson against the Church of Scientology. For details, see Ross
(2004b) and www.lisamcpherson.org. For the alleged negative effects
of participation in Scientology’s activities on other devoted followers,
see Chapter 21 of Paulette Cooper’s (1971) The Scandal of Scientol-
ogy, and Chapter 14 of Corydon and Hubbard (1998) for Cooper’s
own story. Also, Chapter 22 of the same latter book for Scientology’s
alleged treatment of lawyer Michael Flynn—who has since frequently
represented Paramahansa Yogananda’s Self-Realization Fellowship in
their own legal concerns (Russell, 2001).
Hubbard himself died in the mid-’80s. By the end, he had be-
come a rather unhappy man, living in a rather unhappy, Howard
Hughes-like fashion—reportedly believing, at various times, that his
cooks were trying to poison him; and demanding that his dirty clothes
be washed thirteen times, in thirteen different buckets of clean spring
water, before he would wear them.
Psychiatrist Frank Gerbode, who practiced Scientology for

many years, feels that Hubbard was not schizophrenic, but
rather “manic with paranoid tendencies”.... However, Gerbode
suggests that the best description is the lay diagnosis “loony”
(Atack, 1990).
[T]he FBI did not take Hubbard seriously, at one point making
the notation “appears mental” in his file (Wakefield, 1991).
And yet, Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (1998) have
equally claimed:
To be a critic of the Church or its Founder is to be insane.

Simple as that....
Labeling any dissident “psychotic” is commonplace in
Scientology. This is mandated by Hubbard’s written policies.
Good advice, however, comes from—of all places—multiply re-

habbed actor and pornography aficionado Charlie Sheen, a former
boyfriend of Kelly Preston. (Also, an aspiring poet. “Luckily most of
it was written on smack, or it would all be religious fluffy stuff.”) For,
when asked about reported attempts by Scientologists to recruit him
for their cause, Sheen—who would surely have fully appreciated the
hot pants and halter tops of Hubbard’s blossoming “messengers”—is
said to have replied:
“I have no involvement in that form of silliness.”
CHAPTER XIV
WERNER’S
UNCERTAINTY
PRINCIPLE
(est/FORUM/LANDMARK TRAINING)
WERNER ERHARD WAS BORN John Paul Rosenberg. He took his new
moniker on a cross-country plane trip, as a combination of two names
he read in an in-flight magazine: quantum physicist Werner Heisen-
berg—developer of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle—and then-
economics minister of West Germany, Ludwig Erhard.
As to the man’s character, the late Buckminster Fuller effused in
the New York Times (in February of 1979):
I have quite a few million people who listen to me. And I say
Werner Erhard is honest. He may prove untrustworthy, and if
he does then I’ll say so.
That endorsement came, of course, from the same futurist who,

only a few years earlier, had whole-heartedly endorsed the Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi. At the time, Fuller and Erhard were splitting the pro-
ceeds from a series of public “conversations” between the two of
them.
98
WERNER’S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE 99
Erhard’s est training had its roots in many other well-known

therapies and disciplines. Indeed, Mark Brewer (1975), in an article
for Psychology Today, found traces of Zen, Scientology—which Er-
hard once followed—Dale Carnegie and gestalt therapy in the core
teachings of est (“Erhard Seminars Training”):
What the training is more than anything else [is an] application
of classic techniques in indoctrination and mental conditioning
worthy of Pavlov himself.
Yet, the relatively low concentration of things “Eastern” report-

edly did not stop the former used car salesman, Erhard, from ponder-
ing his own high position in the cosmos:
“How do I know I’m not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ?”

Erhard once wondered of a friend (Pressman, 1993).
In other times, Jim Jones asked himself the same question, com-
ing to the conclusion that he was exactly that reincarnation (Layton,
1998)—as well as having more recently been Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Wanna-be rock star and alleged pedophile David Koresh, too—of
Waco, Texas, i.e., Branch Davidian infamy—believed himself to be
Jesus Christ (England and McCormick, 1993); as did Marshall Ap-
plewhite of Heaven’s Gate (Lalich, 2004).
On can, however, always aim higher. Thus, in the autumn of
1977, as reported by Steven Pressman in his (1993) Outrageous Be-
trayal, during a beachside meeting of est seminar leaders in Mon-
terey, one participant got to his feet.
“The question in the room that nobody is asking,” the man told
Erhard solemnly, “is ‘Are you the [M]essiah?’”
The room grew silent as Erhard looked out to the curious
faces of some of his most devoted disciples. After a few mo-
ments he replied, “No, I am who sent him [i.e., God].”
Marshall Applewhite’s spiritual partner, Bonnie Lu Nettles,

likewise believed herself to be an incarnation of God the Father
(Lalich, 2004).
Given reported feelings such as the above among the formerly

encyclopedia-selling “God”—Erhard—and his seminar trainers, it is
hardly surprising that alleged trainee horror stories such as the follow-
ing should surface:
“Most of the people I’ve seen at our clinic—and they come in

after the training in fairly substantial numbers—have suffered
reactions that range from moderately bad to dreadful,” the ex-
ecutive director of New York City’s Lincoln Institute for Psy-
chotherapy reported in 1978. “They are confused and jarred,
and the same pattern—elation, depression, feelings of omnipo-
tence followed by feelings of helplessness—are repeated over
and over again”....
In March 1977 the [American Journal of Psychiatry] pub-
lished the first of two articles ... that described five patients
who had [allegedly] developed psychotic symptoms, including
paranoia, uncontrollable mood swings, and delusions in the
wake of taking the est training (Pressman, 1993).
David Shy (2004) lists additional relevant published concerns.

Erhard himself has reportedly “hotly denied any damaging ef-
fects from the est training” (Pressman, 1993).
Early graduates of Erhard’s four-day est seminars included John
“Windy Kansas Wheat Field” Denver—who wanted to give up his
singing career to become an est trainer. Also, Diana Ross, astronaut
Buzz Aldrin, and Yoko Ono. More recently, Ted Danson, Valerie
Harper, Roy “Jaws” Scheider and numerous other Hollywood stars
have taken Erhard’s courses.
At any rate, as if to argue that the harsh discipline of any “holy
man” directed toward his followers simply begins a “cycle of abuse”
with future generations of disciples, we have the following allegation:
Those who worked closest to Erhard often witnessed his own

tirades and yelling bouts, and sometimes felt free to mirror his
own behavior when they were in charge (Pressman, 1993).
Erhard’s home life may have taken tragic turns as well. For,
Werner’s daughter Deborah once alleged that he had
WERNER’S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE 101
coerced one of his older daughters ... into having sexual inter-
course with him in a hotel room they were sharing during one
of his frequent out-of-town trips (Pressman, 1993).*
“Thank you for sharing.”
* Erhard has denied all allegations of abuse. Jane Self’s (1992) 60 Min-
utes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard has further offered a
staunch defense of Erhard against the uncomplimentary picture of him
painted by the media. There, she alleges that the orchestration of his
downfall can be found within the Church of Scientology. In that same
book, Erhard’s daughters are quoted as retracting their previous allega-
tions of improprieties on his part, having supposedly made them under
duress.
Dr. Self does not address the alleged negative effects of Erhard’s
seminars on their most vulnerable participants nor, in my opinion, con-
vincingly refute Erhard’s reportedly messianic view of himself. (Curi-
ously, though, both she and Werner’s friend Mark Kamin refer to Er-
hard’s public downfall as his being “crucified.”) Nor, unlike Pressman
(1993), does she delve into the serious, alleged behind-the-scenes issues
with the Hunger Project. (That project was Erhard’s failed attempt to
wipe out starvation by the year 2000.) Instead, she simply repeats the
“public relations” line on that topic.
CHAPTER XV
COCKROACH YOGA
(YOGI BHAJAN)
YOGI BHAJAN WAS THE SIKH FOUNDER of 3HO, the nonprofit

“Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization,” headquartered in Los Angeles.
Born in the Punjab, he worked as a customs agent in New Delhi
before emigrating with his wife to North America in 1968, at age
thirty-nine, to teach kundalini and white tantric yoga there.
White tantra is used “to purify and uplift the being,” as opposed
to black, which is “for mental control of other people,” or red, which
is “for sexual energy and senses” or for demonstrating miracles (S.
Khalsa, 1996).
Yogi Bhajan has said that kundalini yoga will be the yoga of
the Aquarian Age and will be practiced for the next five thou-
sand years (in Singh, 1998a).
Guru Terath Singh Khalsa, who is [Bhajan’s] lawyer and

spokesman, says that Bhajan is “the equivalent of the pope”
(Time, 1977).
Yogi Bhajan is unique among spiritual teachers because he is

also the Mahan Tantric of this era. This means that he is the
only living master of white tantric yoga in the world, since
there can only be one on the planet at any given time. He is a
world teacher, a very special instrument whom God has ap-
102
COCKROACH YOGA 103
pointed and anointed to awaken the millions of sleeping souls

on this planet (S. Khalsa, 1996).
The idea that Bhajan is actually the “Mahan Tantric of this era”
via any recognized lineage, however, has been questioned by some of
his detractors.
In any case, Madonna, Rosanna Arquette, Melissa Etheridge,
Cindy Crawford, Courtney Love and David Duchovny have all re-
portedly been influenced by Gurmukh Kaur Khalsa, one of Yogi Bha-
jan’s devoted followers (Ross, 2002). As of 1980, Bhajan claimed a
quarter of a million devotees worldwide, including around 2500 in his
ashrams. The yogi himself was reported to live in a mansion in Los
Angeles.
The late (d. October, 2004) Bhajan’s brand of Sikhism has actu-
ally been rejected by the orthodox Sikh community, but that seems to
derive more from him including elements of (Hindu) kundalini yoga
in it than for any concern about the teachings or practices themselves.
***
As a Master, as a yogi, Yogi Bhajan always sees women—and

men—from a cosmic viewpoint. He never forgets that we are
primarily souls, paying our karma and learning our lessons in
these two different forms....
“I believe that so long as those born of woman do not re-
spect woman, there shall be no peace on Earth” [Bhajan has
said] (S. Khalsa, 1996).
The particular brand of “respect” offered to women within Bha-

jan’s community, however, may have stopped somewhat short of any
enlightened ideal, as one of his female devotees explained:
When I moved into the Philadelphia ashram back in the ’70s, I

was handed a little pink book called Fascinating Woman-
hood.... [I]t is a practical how-to manual on marriage from the
woman’s point of view, written by a Mormon. It is the phi-
losophical opposite of feminism, completely committed to the
belief that the spiritual fulfillment of women is achieved
through unquestioning service and obedience to men....
In most ways 3HOers no longer play such extreme sex

roles. It has been a very long time since I have seen a male
head of an ashram lounging around while sweet young things
ply him with foot massages (K. Khalsa, 1990).
Of course, that implies that there was a time when desirable

young women in the ashrams would give foot massages to the highly
placed men there.
In a series of lectures entitled “Man to Man,” Yogi Bhajan ex-

plains women’s nature to the males: “One day she is very
bright and charming and after a couple days she is totally
dumb and non-communicative. This is called the ‘normal
woman mood.’” And because women fluctuate so much, “a
female needs constant social security and constant leadership
... when you are not the leader, she is not satisfied” (Naman,
1980).
Such “fifteenth century” (i.e., when the Sikh religion was found-
ed by Guru Nanak) attitudes toward “the fairer sex,” though, would
invariably have an alleged flip side:
Bhajan has repeatedly been accused of being a womanizer.

Colleen Hoskins, who worked seven months at his New Mex-
ico residence, reports that men are scarcely seen there. He is
served, she says, by a coterie of as many as fourteen women,
some of whom attend his baths, give him group massages, and
take turns spending the night in his room while his wife sleeps
elsewhere (Time, 1977).
When the same Ms. Hoskins became disillusioned and decided

to leave the 3HO group, she was allegedly told by Bhajan that “she
would be responsible for a nuclear holocaust” (Naman, 1980).
Perhaps in anticipation of such calamities, Bhajan is reported to
have suggested (in Singh, 1998):
We should have a place, which should sustain five thousand

children, five thousand women, and one thousand men.
COCKROACH YOGA 105
Of course, if we have learned one thing from Dr. Strangelove, it

is that such women would have to be chosen for their “breeding po-
tential”....
***
The proper attitude toward the guru, within 3HO as elsewhere, was
explained by Bhajan himself:
Advice should be righteous, your mind should be righteous,

and your advice and activity to that advice should be righteous.
If a guru says, “Get up in the morning and praise God,” will
you do it?
Answer: Yes.
Question: If the guru says “Get up in the morning and steal,”
will you do it?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Is everything the guru says righteous?
Answer: Otherwise he is not a guru.
Question: Is it righteous to steal?
Answer: Perhaps he is testing, who knows. What is a guru? A
guru is an unknown infinity of you, otherwise another human
being cannot be a guru to you (Bhajan, 1977).
Note that this quotation is not taken out of context: it is a full en-
try in the “Relationship” chapter of the indicated book by Yogi Bha-
jan.
The alleged result of such attitudes is not altogether surprising:
The yogi makes money from businesses run by his yoga disci-
ples, but was sued for “assault, battery, fraud and deceit.” He
decided to settle out of court.
One of Bhajan’s top leaders and yoga enthusiasts was
busted for smuggling guns and marijuana and then sentenced
to prison (Ross, 2003c).
And what was Bhajan’s reported response to such downturns of

fortune?
The critics didn’t spare Jesus Christ, they didn’t spare Buddha,
and they don’t spare me (in Naman, 1980).
***
At the 1974 3HO Teachers Meeting in Santa Cruz, New Mexico,

Yogi Bhajan had allegedly predicted:
In another ten years hospitals will have iron windows and peo-
ple will try to jump out. There will be tremendous sickness.
There will be unhappiness and tragedy on Earth.
Your dead bodies will lie on these roads, your children
will be orphans, and nobody will kick them, rather, people will
eat them alive! There will be tremendous insanity. That is the
time we are going to face (in Singh, 1998).
And from the same sage in 1977 (reported in Singh, 2000):
Now you say there is no life on Mars? Mars is populated ... it

is over-populated. The rate of production and sensuality is so
heavy, and the beings—they grow so fast that they have to go
and make war on all the other planets.
There are beings on Jupiter. There is a hierarchy. Their
energy and our energy interexchange [sic] in the astral body
and it is highly effective.
***
For a long time I didn’t worry much about the few odd people
who left 3HO. I hadn’t liked them much when they were in
3HO so it seemed reasonable to me that, after forsaking the
truth, they had all become pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers,
like the rumors implied (K. Khalsa, 1990).
But again, Bhajan himself saw it all coming:
[Yogi Bhajan] warned all of us who were to become teachers

that, “You will be tested in three areas: money, sex, or
power—possibly in all of them.” It is a great responsibility and
privilege to teach kundalini yoga. It is said that if a teacher be-
COCKROACH YOGA 107
trays the sacred trust placed in him, he will be reborn as a

cockroach! (S. Khalsa, 1996).
Kundalini yoga. Tantric sex yoga. Pimp yoga. Prostitute yoga

(“3-HOs”). Drug-dealer yoga. Gun yoga. Nuclear holocaust yoga.
Cockroach yoga.
CHAPTER XVI
A WILD AND CRAZY

WISDOM GUY
(CHÖGYAM TRUNGPA)
CHÖGYAM TRUNGPA, BORN IN 1939, is the first of the “crazy wisdom”

masters whose effect on North American spirituality we will be con-
sidering.
The night of my conception my mother had a very significant

dream that a being had entered her body with a flash of light;
that year flowers bloomed in the neighborhood although it was
still winter, to the surprise of the inhabitants....
I was born in the cattle byre [shed]; the birth came easily.
On that day a rainbow was seen in the village, a pail supposed
to contain water was unaccountably found full of milk, while
several of my mother’s relations dreamt that a lama was visit-
ing their tents (Trungpa, 1977).
As the eleventh incarnation of the Trungpa Tulku, the milk-fed

sage was raised from his childhood to be the supreme abbot of the
Surmang monasteries in eastern Tibet.
In Trungpa’s same tradition, a tulku is “someone who reincar-
nates with the memories and values of previous lives intact” (Butter-
field, 1994). Of an earlier, fourth incarnation of that same Trungpa
108
A WILD AND CRAZY WISDOM GUY 109
Tulku (Trungpa Künga-gyaltzen) in the late fourteenth century, it has

been asserted:
[H]e was looked upon as an incarnation of Maitreya Bodhi-

sattva, destined to be the Buddha of the next World Cycle, also
of Dombhipa a great Buddhist siddha (adept) and of Milarepa
(Trungpa, 1977).
Having been enthroned in Tibet as heir to the lineages of Mi-

larepa and Padmasambhava, Trungpa left the country for India in
1959, fleeing the Chinese Communist takeover. There, by appoint-
ment of the Dalai Lama, he served as the spiritual advisor for the
Young Lamas Home School in Dalhousie, until 1963 (Shambhala,
2003).
From India Chögyam went to England, studying comparative re-
ligion and psychology at Oxford University. (A later student of
Trungpa’s, Al Santoli, “suggests that the CIA may have had a hand in
getting the eleventh Trungpa into Oxford” [Clark, 1980].) He further
caused quite a stir in clashing with another tulku adversary (Akong)
of his who, like Trungpa himself, had designs on leading their lineage
in the West.
To the amazement of a small circle of local helpers and to the

gross embarrassment of the powers that sent them to England,
the two honorable tulkus entered into heated arguments and
publicly exchanged hateful invectives. In an early edition of
his book, Born in Tibet, Trungpa called Akong paranoid and
scheming (Lehnert, 1998).
In any case, Trungpa and Akong went on to found the first

Western-hemisphere Tibetan Buddhist meditation center, in Scotland,
which community was visited by the American poet Robert Bly in
1971.
It was, Trungpa remembers, “a forward step. Nevertheless, it

was not entirely satisfying, for the scale of activity was small,
and the people who did come to participate seemed to be
slightly missing the point” (Fields, 1992).
That same center later became of interest to the police as they

investigated allegations of drug abuse there. Trungpa, not himself
prone to “missing the point,” avoided that bust by hiding in a stable.
The Buddhist nun Tenzin Palmo (in Mackenzie, 1999) related
her own experiences with the young Chögyam in England, upon their
first meeting in 1962. There, in finding his attentive hands working
their way up her skirt in the middle of afternoon tea and cucumber
sandwiches, Trungpa received a stiletto heel to his sandaled holy feet.
His later “smooth line” to her, in repeated attempts at seduction be-
yond that initial meeting/groping, included the claim that Palmo had
“swept him off his monastic feet.” That, in spite of the fact that he
“had women since [he] was thirteen,” and already had a son.
In 1969 Chögyam experienced a tragic automobile accident
which left him paralyzed on the left side of his body. The car had ca-
reened into a joke shop (seriously); Trungpa had been driving drunk
at the time (Das, 1997), to the point of blacking out at the wheel
(Trungpa, 1977).
Note, now, that Trungpa did not depart from Tibet for India until
age twenty, and did not leave India for his schooling in England until
four years later. Thus, eleven years of his having “had women” were
enacted within surrounding traditional Tibetan and northern Indian
attitudes toward acceptable behavior (on the part of monks, etc.). In-
deed, according to the son referenced above, both his mother and
Trungpa were under vows of celibacy, in Tibet, at the time of their
union (Dykema, 2003). Of the three hundred monks entrusted to him
when he was enthroned as supreme abbot of the Surmang monaster-
ies, Trungpa himself (1977) remarked that
one hundred and seventy were bhikshus (fully ordained

monks), the remainder being shramaneras (novices) and
young upsaka students who had already taken the vow of celi-
bacy.
Obviously, then, Trungpa’s (Sarvastivadin) tradition was not a

“monastic” one without celibacy vows, as is the case with Zen.
Further, Trungpa himself did not formally give up his monastic
vows to work as a “lay teacher” until sometime after his car accident
in England. This, then, is another clear instance of demonstration that
traditional agrarian society places no more iron-clad constraints on
the behavior of any “divine sage” than does its postmodern, Western
counterpart.
Trungpa may have “partied harder” in Europe and the States, but
he was already breaking plenty of rules, without censure, back in Ti-
bet and India. Indeed, one could probably reasonably argue that, pro-
portionately, he broke as many social and cultural rules, with as little
censure, in Tibet and India as he later did in America. (For blatant
examples of what insignificant discipline is visited upon even violent
rule-breakers in Tibetan Buddhist society even today, consult Leh-
nert’s [1998] Rogues in Robes.) Further, Trungpa (1977) did not be-
gin to act as anyone’s guru until age fourteen, but had women “since
he was thirteen.” He was thus obviously breaking that vow of celi-
bacy with impunity both before and after assuming “God-like” guru
status, again in agrarian 1950s Tibet.
In 1970, the recently married Trungpa and his sixteen-year-old,
dressage-fancying English wife, Diana, established their permanent
residence in the United States. He was soon teaching at the University
of Colorado, and in time accumulated around 1500 disciples. Included
among those was folksinger Joni Mitchell, who visited the tulku three
times, and whose song “Refuge of the Roads” (from the 1976 album
Hejira) contains an opening verse about the guru. Contemporary
transpersonal psychologist and author John Welwood, member of the
Board of Editors of The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, is also
a long-time follower of Trungpa.
In 1974, Chögyam founded the accredited Naropa Institute in
Boulder, Colorado—the first tantric university in America. Instructors
and guests at Naropa have included psychiatrist R. D. Laing, Gregory
Bateson, Ram Dass and Allen Ginsberg—after whom the university
library was later named. (Ginsberg had earlier spent time with Muk-
tananda [Miles, 1989].) Also, Marianne Faithfull, avant-garde com-
poser John Cage, and William “Naked Lunch” Burroughs, who had
earlier become enchanted (1974, 1995) and then disenchanted with L.
Ron Hubbard’s Scientology. Plus, the infinitely tedious Tibetan
scholar and translator Herbert V. Guenther, whose writings, even by
dry academic standards, could function well as a natural sedative.
Bhagavan Das (1997) related his own, more lively experiences,
while teaching Indian music for three months at Naropa in the ’70s:
The party energy around [Trungpa] was compelling. In fact,

that’s basically what Naropa was: a huge blowout party,
twenty-four hours a day....
I was in a very crazed space and very lost. One day, after
having sex with three different women, I couldn’t get out of
bed. I was traumatized. It was all too much.
Jack Kornfield offered a less “traumatic” recounting of his own

days lecturing there, being invited to teach after he and Trungpa had
met at a (where else) cocktail party in 1973:
We all had this romantic, idealistic feeling that we were at the

beginning of a consciousness movement that was really going
to transform the world (in Schwartz, 1996).
Befitting the leader of such a world-changing effort, in 1974

Trungpa was confirmed as a Vajracarya, or a “spiritual master of the
highest level,” by His Holiness the Karmapa Lama, during the latter’s
first visit to the West (Trungpa, 1977).
***
The practice of “crazy wisdom” itself rests upon the following theory:
[I]f a bodhisattva is completely selfless, a completely open

person, then he will act according to openness, will not have to
follow rules; he will simply fall into patterns. It is impossible
for the bodhisattva to destroy or harm other people, because he
embodies transcendental generosity. He has opened himself
completely and so does not discriminate between this and that.
He just acts in accordance with what is.... [H]is mind is so pre-
cise, so accurate that he never makes mistakes [italics added].
He never runs into unexpected problems, never creates chaos
in a destructive way (Trungpa, 1973).
[O]nce you receive transmission and form the [guru-disciple]

bond of samaya, you have committed yourself to the teacher as
guru, and from then on, the guru can do no wrong, no matter
what. It follows that if you obey the guru in all things, you can
do no wrong either. This is the basis of Osel Tendzin’s
[Trungpa’s eventual successor] teaching that “if you keep your

samaya, you cannot make a mistake.” He was not deviating
into his own megalomania when he said this, but repeating the
most essential idea of mainstream Vajrayana [i.e., Tantric
Buddhism] (Butterfield, 1994).
Q [student]: What if you feel the necessity for a violent act in

order ultimately to do good for a person?
A [Trungpa]: You just do it (Trungpa, 1973).
A perfect example of going with energy, of the positive wild

yogi quality, was the actual transmission of enlightenment
from Tilopa to [his disciple] Naropa. Tilopa removed his san-
dal and slapped Naropa in the face (Trungpa, 1973).
We could, of course, have learned as much from the Three

Stooges.
Q [student]: Must we have a spiritual friend [e.g., a guru] be-

fore we can expose ourselves, or can we just open ourselves to
the situations of life?
A [Trungpa]: I think you need someone to watch you do it, be-
cause then it will seem more real to you. It is easy to undress in
a room with no one else around, but we find it difficult to un-
dress ourselves in a room full of people (Trungpa, 1973).
Yes, there was plenty of undressing. At the Halloween costume

party during an annual seminar in the autumn of 1975, for example:
A woman is stripped naked, apparently at Trungpa’s joking

command, and hoisted into the air by [his] guards, and passed
around—presumably in fun, although the woman does not
think so (Marin, 1995).
The pacifist poet William Merwin and his wife, Dana, were at-
tending the same three-month retreat, but made the mistake of keep-
ing to themselves within a crowd mentality where that was viewed as
offensive “egotism” on their part. Consequently, their perceived
“aloofness” had been resented all summer by the other community
members ... and later categorized as “resistance” by Trungpa himself.
Thus, Merwin and his companion showed up briefly for the

aforementioned Halloween party, danced only with each other, and
then went back to their room.
Trungpa, however, insisted through a messenger that they return
and rejoin the party. In response, William and his wife locked them-
selves in their room, turned off the lights ... and soon found them-
selves on the receiving end of a group of angry, drunken spiritual
seekers, who proceeded to cut their telephone line, kick in the door (at
Trungpa’s command) and break a window (Miles, 1989).
Panicked, but discerning that broken glass is mightier than the
pen, the poet defended himself by smashing bottles over several of
the attacking disciples, injuring a friend of his. Then, mortified and
giving up the struggle, he and his wife were dragged from the room.
[Dana] implored that someone call the police, but to no avail.

She was insulted by one of the women in the hallway and a
man threw wine in her face (Schumacher, 1992).
And then, at the feet of the wise guru, after Trungpa had “told
Merwin that he had heard the poet was making a lot of trouble”:
[Merwin:] I reminded him that we never promised to obey

him. He said, “Ah, but you asked to come” (Miles, 1989).
An argument ensued, during which Trungpa insulted Merwin’s

Oriental wife with racist remarks [in return for which she
called him a “Nazi”] and threw a glass of saké in the poet’s
face (Feuerstein, 1992).
Following that noble display of high realization, Trungpa had the

couple forcibly stripped by his henchmen—against the protests of
both Dana and one of the few courageous onlookers, who was
punched in the face and called a “son of a bitch” by Trungpa himself
for his efforts.
“Guards dragged me off and pinned me to the floor,” [Dana]

wrote in her account of the incident.... “I fought and called to
friends, men and women whose faces I saw in the crowd, to
call the police. No one did.... [One devotee] was stripping me
while others held me down. Trungpa was punching [him] in
the head, urging him to do it faster. The rest of my clothes

were torn off.”
“See?” said Trungpa. “It’s not so bad, is it?” Merwin and
Dana stood naked, holding each other, Dana sobbing (Miles,
1989).
Finally, others stripped voluntarily and Trungpa, apparently sat-

isfied, said “Let’s dance” (Marin, 1995). “And so they did.”
And that, kiddies, is what they call “authentic Tibetan Bud-
dhism.”
Don’t let your parents find out: Soon they won’t even let you say
your prayers before bedtime, for fear that it might be a “gateway” to
the hard-core stuff.
The scandal ensuing from the above humiliation became known
as, in all seriousness, “the great Naropa poetry wars.” It was, indeed,
commemorated in the identical title of a must-read (though sadly out
of print) book by Tom Clark (1980). If you need to be cured of the
idea that Trungpa was anything but a “power-hungry ex-monarch”
alcoholic fool, that is the book to read. (Interestingly, a poll taken by
the Naropa student newspaper in the late ’70s disclosed that nine of
twenty-six students at their poetry school regarded Trungpa as being
either a “total fraud” or very near to the same.)
For his journalistic efforts, Clark was rewarded with “lots of
hang-up phone calls,” presumably as an intimidation tactic on the part
of Trungpa’s loyal followers.
And incredibly, even after enduring the above reported abuse,
Merwin and Dana chose to remain at the seminary for Trungpa’s sub-
sequent Vajrayana lectures.
At any rate, Chögyam’s own (1977) presentation of the goings-
on at his “seminars,” even well after the Merwin incident, predictably
paled in comparison to their realities:
I initiated the annual Vajradhatu Seminary, a three-month in-

tensive practice and study retreat for mature students. The first
of these seminaries, involving eighty students, took place ... in
the autumn of 1973. Periods of all-day sitting meditation alter-
nated with a study programme methodically progressing
through the three yanas of Buddhist teaching, Hinayana, Ma-
hayana and Vajrayana.
“Mature, methodical progression,” however, does not quite cap-

ture the mood earlier expressed by the traumatized Das or the invol-
untarily stripped Merwin and his wife.
How then is one to understand Chögyam’s “extra-curricular” ac-
tivities within the context of such Vajrayana teachings?
The notorious case involving Trungpa ... was given all sorts of
high explanations by his followers, none of whom got the cor-
rect one: Trungpa made an outrageous, inexcusable, and com-
pletely stupid mistake, period (Wilber, 1983).
Trungpa’s own insistence, however, was again always that he

and his enlightened ilk “never make mistakes.” (The explicit quote to
that effect, above, is from 1973—a full decade prior to Wilber’s at-
tempted, and wholly failed, explanation.) Rather, the day following
the Merwin “incident,” Trungpa simply posted an open letter to eve-
ryone at the retreat, effectively explaining his previous night’s behav-
ior as part of his “teaching.” No apology was offered by him, and he
certainly did not regard himself as having made any “mistake” what-
soever (Marin, 1995). Even in the late ’70s, when Allen Ginsberg
asked Trungpa, “was it a mistake? He said, ‘Nope’” (in Clark, 1980).
Ginsberg himself, too, “said Trungpa may have been guilty of indis-
cretion, but he had not been wrong in the way he had behaved”
(Schumacher, 1992). And indeed, any disciple who might ever ques-
tion the stated infallibility of such a guru would again only be demon-
strating his own disloyalty. The only “option” for any obedient fol-
lower is then, quite obviously, to find a “high explanation” for the
activities.
“I was wrong,” Trungpa might have said. Or, “he was wrong,”
his disciples might have said. But they cannot say such things.
It would interfere too much with the myth [of Trungpa’s su-
pernatural enlightenment] they have chosen to believe....
I think back to a conversation I recently had with the di-
rector of Naropa’s summer academic program.... [W]hen, in
the course of the conversation, I asked him whether Trungpa
can make a mistake, he answered: “You know, a student has to
believe his master can make no mistake. Sometimes Trungpa
may do something I don’t understand. But I must believe what
he does is always for the best” (Marin, 1995).
In 1978, the emotionally involved Allen Ginsberg was con-

fronted with the suggestion that the obedience of Trungpa’s followers
in the “Merwin incident” might be compared to that of participants in
the Jonestown mass suicides. He then gave his own heated, and ut-
terly irrational, analysis:
In the middle of that scene, [for Dana] to yell “call the po-
lice”—do you realize how vulgar that was? The wisdom of the
East being unveiled, and she’s going “call the police!” I mean,
shit! Fuck that shit! Strip ‘em naked, break down the door!
Anything—symbolically (in Clark, 1980).
Yes. “Symbolically.”
Further, regarding Wilber’s intimation that the guru’s actions
were an isolated “mistake”: When a former resident of Trungpa’s
community was asked, in 1979, whether the “Merwin incident” was a
characteristic happening, or a singular occurrence, she responded (in
Clark, 1980):
It is a typical incident, it is not an isolated example. At every

seminary, as far as I know, there was a confrontation involving
violence.
In any case, the regarding of such actions as Chögyam’s versus

Merwin, as being simple “mistakes,” certainly could not explain away
the reported premeditated means by which disciples were “kept in
line” within Trungpa’s community:
We were admonished ... not to talk about our practice. “May I

shrivel up instantly and rot,” we vowed, “if I ever discuss these
teachings with anyone who has not been initiated into them by
a qualified master.” As if this were not enough, Trungpa told
us that if we ever tried to leave the Vajrayana, we would suffer
unbearable, subtle, continuous anguish, and disasters would
pursue us like furies....
To be part of Trungpa’s inner circle, you had to take a
vow never to reveal or even discuss some of the things he did.
This personal secrecy is common with gurus, especially in
Vajrayana Buddhism. It is also common in the dysfunctional
family systems of alcoholics and sexual abusers. This inner
circle secrecy puts up an almost insurmountable barrier to a

healthy skeptical mind....
[T]he vow of silence means that you cannot get near him
until you have already given up your own perception of en-
lightenment and committed yourself to his (Butterfield, 1994).
The traditional Vajrayana teachings on the importance of loyalty

to the guru are no less categorical:
Breaking tantric samaya [i.e., leaving one’s guru] is more

harmful than breaking other vows. It is like falling from an air-
plane compared to falling from a horse (Tulku Thondup, in
[Panchen and Wangyi, 1996]).
In many texts, the consequences of breaking with one’s guru

are told in graphic terms, for it is believed that, once having
left a guru, a disciple’s spiritual progress “comes to an absolute
end” because “he never again meets with a spiritual master,”
and he is subject to “endless wandering in the lower realms.”
In the case of disrespect for the guru, it is said in the texts that
if the disciple “comes to despise his Guru, he encounters many
problems in the same life and then experiences a violent death”
(Campbell, 1996, quoting from [Dhargyey, 1974]).
Such constraints on the disciple place great power into the hands
of the guru-figure—power which Trungpa, like countless others be-
fore and after him, was not shy about exercising and preserving.
[Trungpa] was protected by bodyguards known as the Vajra

Guard, who wore blue blazers and received specialized train-
ing that included haiku composition and flower arranging. On
one occasion, to test a student guard’s alertness, Trungpa
hurled himself from a staircase, expecting to be caught. The
guard was inattentive, and Trungpa landed on his head, requir-
ing a brief visit to the hospital (Miles, 1989).
We could, of course, have learned as much from Inspector Clou-

seau.
Or, expressed in haiku (if not in flower arranging):
Hopped up on saké
I throw myself down the stairs
No one to catch me
I was scolded by one of his disciples for laughing at Trungpa.

He was a nut. But they were very offended....
He had women bodyguards in black dresses and high
heels packing automatics standing in a circle around him while
they served saké and invited me over for a chat. It was bizarre
(Gary Snyder, in [Downing, 2001]).
Interestingly, Trungpa considered the SFZC’s Shunryu Suzuki to

be his “spiritual father,” while Suzuki considered the former to be
“like my son” (in Chadwick, 1999).
***
There is a actually a very easy way to tell whether or not any “sage’s”
“crazy wisdom” treatment of others is really a “skillful means,” em-
ployed to enlighten the people toward whom it is directed.
Consider that we would not attempt to evaluate whether a person
is a hypochondriac, for example, when he is in the hospital, diagnosed
with pneumonia or worse, and complaining about that. Rather, hypo-
chondria shows when a person is certified to be perfectly healthy, but
still worries neurotically that every little pain may be an indication of
a serious illness.
We would likewise not attempt to evaluate any author’s polem-
ics in situations where the “righteous anger” may have been pro-
voked, and may be justifiable as an attempt to “awaken” the people at
whom it is directed, or even just to give them a “taste of their own
medicine.” If we can find the same polemic being thrown around in
contexts where it was clearly unprovoked, however, we may be cer-
tain that there is more to the author’s motivations than such claimed
high-minded ideals. That is, we may be confident that he is doing it
for his own benefit, in blowing off steam, or simply enjoying dissing
others whose ideas he finds threatening. In short, such unprovoked
polemics would give us strong reason to believe that the author is not
being honest with himself regarding the supposedly noble basis of his
own anger.
We would not attempt to evaluate the “skillful means” by which

any claimed “sage” puts his followers into psychological binds, etc.,
in their native guru-disciple contexts, where such actions may be jus-
tified. Rather, we would instead look at how the guru-figure interacts
with others in situations where his hypocritical or allegedly abusive
actions cannot be excused as an attempt to awaken them. If we find
the same reported abusive behaviors in his interactions with non-
disciples as we find in his interactions with his close followers, the
most generous position is to “subtract” the “baseline” of the non-
disciple interactions from the guru-disciple ones. If the alleged “skill-
ful means” (of anger and reported “Rude Boy” abuse) are present
equally in both sets, they cancel out, and were thus never “skillful” to
begin with. Rather, they were simply the transplanting of pre-existing
despicable behaviors into a context in which they may appear to be
acceptable.
In the present context, then, since Akong was never one of
Trungpa’s disciples, Chögyam’s poor behavior toward the former
cannot be excused as any attempted “skillful means” of awakening
him. Merwin and his wife were likewise not disciples of Trungpa.
Thus, his disciplining of them for not joining the Halloween party
arguably provides another example of the guru humiliating others
only for his own twisted enjoyment, not for their spiritual good.
We will find good use for this “contextual comparison” method
when evaluating the behaviors of many other “crazy wisdom” or
“Rude Boy” gurus and their supporters, in the coming chapters.
***
Allen [Ginsberg] asked Trungpa why he drank so much.

Trungpa explained he hoped to determine the illumination of
American drunkenness. In the United States, he said, alcohol
was the main drug, and he wanted to use his acquired knowl-
edge of drunkenness as a source of wisdom (Schumacher,
1992).
[Trungpa’s] health had begun to fail. He spent nearly a year

and a half in a semicoma, nearly dying on a couple of occa-
sions, before finally succumbing to a heart attack (Schumach-
er, 1992).
Before he died of acute alcoholism in 1987, Trungpa appointed

an American acolyte named Thomas Rich, also known as Osel
Tendzin, as his successor. Rich, a married father of four, died
of AIDS in 1990 amid published reports that he had had unpro-
tected sex with [over a hundred] male and female students
without telling them of his illness (Horgan, 2003a).
Tendzin offered to explain his behavior at a meeting which I

attended. Like all of his talks, this was considered a teaching of
dharma, and donations were solicited and expected (Butter-
field, 1994).
Having forked over the requisite $35 “offering,” Butterfield was

treated to Tendzin’s dubious explanation:
In response to close questioning by students, he first swore us

to secrecy (family secrets again), and then said that Trungpa
had requested him to be tested for HIV in the early 1980s and
told him to keep quiet about the positive result. Tendzin had
asked Trungpa what he should do if students wanted to have
sex with him, and Trungpa’s reply was that as long as he did
his Vajrayana purification practices, it did not matter, because
they would not get the disease. Tendzin’s answer, in short, was
that he had obeyed the instructions of his guru. He said we
must not get trapped in the dualism of good and evil, there has
never been any stain, our anger is the compassion of the guru,
and we must purify all obstacles that prevent us from seeing
the world as a sacred mandala of buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Yet, in spite of that, and well after all of those serious problems
in behavior had become widely known, we still have this untenable
belief being voiced, by none other than Ken Wilber (1996):
“Crazy wisdom” occurs in a very strict ethical atmosphere.
If all of the above was occurring within a “very strict ethical at-
mosphere,” however, one shudders to think of what horrors an un-
ethical atmosphere might unleash. Indeed, speaking of one of the un-
duly admired individuals whom we shall meet later, an anonymous
poster with much more sense rightly made the following self-evident
point:
One problem with the whole idea of the “crazy-wise” teacher

is that [Adi] Da can claim to embody anyone or anything, en-
gage in any sort of ethical gyration at all, and, regardless of
disciples’ reactions, Da can simply claim his action was moti-
vated as “another teaching.” He thus places himself in a posi-
tion where he is utterly immune from any ethical judgment (in
Bob, 2000; italics added).
More plainly, there can obviously be no such thing as a “strict

ethical atmosphere” in any “crazy wisdom” environment.
But perhaps Trungpa and Tendzin—a former close disciple of
Satchidananda, who was actually in charge of the latter’s Integral
Yoga Institute in the early ’70s (Fields, 1992)—had simply corrupted
that traditional “atmosphere” for their own uses? Sadly, no:
Certain journalists, quoting teachers from other Buddhist sects,

have implied that Trungpa did not teach real Buddhism but a
watered-down version for American consumption, or that his
teaching was corrupted by his libertine outlook. After doing
Vajrayana practices, reading texts on them by Tibetan authori-
ties, and visiting Buddhist centers in the United States and
Europe, I was satisfied that this allegation is untrue. The prac-
tices taught in Vajradhatu are as genuinely Buddhist as any-
thing in the Buddhist world....
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, after the Tendzin scandal, in-
sisted to Vajradhatu students that Trungpa had given them au-
thentic dharma, and they should continue in it exactly as he
had prescribed (Butterfield, 1994; italics added).
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche—“Rinpoche” being a title meaning

“Precious One”—was head of the oldest Nyingma or “Ancient Ones”
School of Tibetan Buddhism from 1987 until his death in 1991.
Even with all that, Peter Marin (1995)—a non-Buddhist writer
who taught for several months at Naropa in 1977—still validly ob-
served that the activities at Naropa were relatively tame, compared to
the oppression which could be found in other sects.
In the end, though, Andrew Harvey (2000) put it well:
In general, I think that nearly all of what passes for “crazy wis-
dom” and is justified as “crazy wisdom” by both master and
enraptured disciple is really cruelty and exploitation, not en-
lightened wisdom at all. In the name of “crazy wisdom” ap-
palling crimes have been rationalized by master and disciple
alike, and many lives have been partly or completely devas-
tated.
One is of course still free, even after all that, to respect Trungpa
for being up-front about his “drinking and wenching” (in Downing,
2001), rather than hypocritically hiding those indulgences, as many
other guru-figures have allegedly done. That meager remainder, how-
ever, obviously pales drastically in comparison with what one might
have reasonably expected the legacy of any self-proclaimed “incarna-
tion of Maitreya Bodhisattva” to be. Indeed, by that very criterion of
non-hypocrisy, one could admire the average pornographer just as
much. Sadly, by the end of this book, that point will only have been
reinforced, not in the least diminished, by the many individuals whose
questionable influence on other people’s lives has merited their inclu-
sion herein. That is so, whatever their individual psychological moti-
vations for the alleged mistreatment of themselves and of others may
have been.
To this day, Trungpa is still widely regarded as being “one of the
four foremost popularizers of Eastern spirituality” in the West in the
twentieth century—the other three being Ram Dass, D. T. Suzuki and
Alan Watts (Oldmeadow, 2004). Others such as the Buddhist scholar
Kenneth Rexroth (in Miles, 1989), though, have offered a less com-
plimentary perspective:
“Many believe Chögyam Trungpa has unquestionably done more
harm to Buddhism in the United States than any man living.”
***
Sometimes the entire Institute seems like a great joke played

by Trungpa on the world: the attempt of an overgrown child to
reconstruct for himself a kingdom according to whim (Marin,
1995).
Through all of that celebrated nonsense “for king/guru and country,”

the Naropa Institute/University continues to exist to the present day,
replete with its “Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics.” Pre-

vious offerings there have included courses in “Investigative Po-
etry”—though, sadly, no corresponding instruction in “Beat Journal-
ism.” Also, at their annual springtime homecoming/reunion, partici-
pation in “contemplative ballroom dancing.” (One assumes that this
would involve something like practicing vipassana “mindfulness”
meditation while dancing. Or perhaps not. Whatever.)
Indeed, a glance at the Naropa website (www.naropa.edu) and
alumni reveals that the ’60s are alive and well, and living in Boulder
—albeit with psych/environmental majors, for college credit.
CHAPTER XVII
SIXTY MINUTES
(SWAMI MUKTANANDA)
Why do false Gurus exist? It is our own fault. We choose our

Gurus just as we choose our politicians. The false Guru market
is growing because the false disciple market is growing. Be-
cause of his blind selfishness, a false Guru drowns people, and
because of his blind selfishness and wrong understanding, a
false disciple gets trapped. A true disciple would never be
trapped by a false Guru (Muktananda, 1981; italics added).
I had a private darshan ... with Swami Muktananda in India

three days before he died, and I thought he was a magnificent
man, an incredibly loving man (Anthony Robbins, in [Ham-
ilton, 1999]).
BORN IN 1908 IN MANGALORE, India, Swami Muktananda, like Neem

Karoli Baba, was a disciple of the respected guru Bhagawan Nit-
yananda, whom he met in 1947.
Not coincidentally, in 1970 Ram Dass introduced Muktananda to
America.
To aid his world mission in furthering the practice of kundalini
yoga, Muktananda in 1974 established the SYDA (Siddha Yoga)
Foundation, with headquarters in South Fallsburg, NY.
125
SYDA admirers have included Jerry Brown, Carly Simon, James

Taylor, Diana Ross and Isabella Rossellini. Also, Rosanna Arquette,
Meg Ryan, The Cosby Show’s Phylicia Rashad, Miami Vice’s Don
Johnson and his wife Melanie Griffith, and Marsha Mason (Neil
Simon’s ex-wife). Plus, singer Mandy Patinkin, celebrated songwriter
Jimmy Webb—composer of both “MacArthur Park” and “Up, Up and
Away (With My Beautiful, My Beautiful Guru....)”—and astronaut
Edgar Mitchell.
***
Whoever has attained spiritual perfection has done so through

his Guru. The Guru grants a life full of grace, complete free-
dom, and liberation of the Self. The Guru’s favor is absolutely
necessary for lasting attainment. Without a Guru man is un-
happy; with a Guru he is full of joy. So surrender yourself
completely to the Guru (Muktananda, 1978; italics added).
The Guru should possess every virtue.... He cannot be a true

Guru if he ... indulges in sense pleasures....
Without the Guru, it is not possible for a person to under-
stand the Truth (Muktananda, 1999).
Muktananda’s specific view toward conjugal relations, further,

reportedly took the following form:
Muktananda advised his devotees to refrain from sex.... “For

mediation,” he told a South Fallsburg audience in 1972, “what
you need is ... seminal vigor. Therefore I insist on total celi-
bacy as long as you are staying in the ashram” (Harris, 1994).
But then, those rules are obviously there only for the benefit of
the disciples, not for the guru who no longer needs them.
At his Ganeshpuri, India, ashram, “he had a secret passageway

from his house to the young girls’ dormitory,” one [ex-
follower] reported. “Whoever he was carrying on with, he had
switched to that dorm. [He] had girls marching in and out of
his bedroom all night long” (Rae, 1991).
SIXTY MINUTES 127
One of the girls thus allegedly marching—“Jennifer”—claimed

to have been raped by the great guru in early 1978.
Muktananda had intercourse with Jennifer for an hour, she

said, and was quite proud of the fact. “He kept saying, ‘Sixty
minutes,’” she said (Rodarmor, 1983).
“An incredibly loving man.”

The “celibate” guru’s reported tolerance for sex, however, ap-
parently did not extend to sexual tolerance:
“A Guru would never be flirting with mistresses or hobnob-

bing with homosexuals,” a 1976 Muktananda missive reads.
“Homosexuals are considered to be eunuchs—disgusting, im-
pure, and inauspicious” (Chew, 1998).
***
If Shiva is angry, the Guru can protect you, but if the Guru be-
comes angry, no one can save you (in Muktananda, 1999).
Unfortunately for his disciples, then:
“Muktananda had a ferocious temper,” said [Richard] Grimes,

“and would scream or yell at someone for no seeming reason.”
He [claims that he] saw the guru beating people on many occa-
sions (Rodarmor, 1983).
Indeed, Noni Patel, the guru’s valet, reportedly once sought

treatment for an odd wound in his side.
“At first, he wouldn’t say how he had gotten it,” Grimes’ wife
Lotte recalled. “Later it came out that [Muktananda] had
stabbed him with a fork” (Rodarmor, 1983).
A clear breach of etiquette, that.
***
Former journalist Sally Kempton, a.k.a. Swami Durgananda, began

following Muktananda in 1974. She has since found work as a col-
umnist for Yoga Journal, and been an interviewee on Ken Wilber’s
Integral Naked (2005) forum.
After decades in the ashrams of the “fully enlightened” Muktan-
anda and his successor, she returned to the secular world in 2002, to
teach. Lis Harris’s (1994) article on SYDA, however, contains nu-
merous segments involving Durgananda, all of them very much worth
reading.
***
Of Muktananda’s own sagely guru, Nityananda (who died in 1960),

the following information is extant:
He was a born siddha [“perfected being”], living his entire life

in the highest state of consciousness (Muktananda, 1999).
He was an omniscient being; still he appeared as if he didn’t

know much....
Only occasionally would he speak; however, you could
not understand him (Muktananda, 1996).
“He was the best of gurus; he was the worst of gurus,” etc.
[W]hen in his twenties, he would hide behind trees, patiently

waiting for a cow to come his way. The moment the animal
stood to drop a cowpat, he would rush forward, scoop up the
dropping in midair, and then swallow it (Feuerstein, 1992).
Yum. Nor did such feasting exhaust the yogi’s interest in cows
and their rectal output:
He would at times be seen in the middle of the road (there was

hardly any motor traffic in those days), catching the dropping
from a cow before it fell to the ground, putting it on his head,
and then whistling just like a railway engine and chugging
away, as children often do (Hatengdi, 1984).
“Woo-woo! Next stop, Looney Station.”

SIXTY MINUTES 129
[Nityananda] would speak quite frequently about devotees who

had the mentality of a crow. A crow, even in heaven, said
Baba, insists on eating shit, because that is what he has been
accustomed to. And this is exactly how these faultfinding
devotees behave (Muktananda, 1996).
Cows, crows, choo-choos ... and more:
On another occasion, he besmeared himself from head to toe

[i.e., including his lips] with [human] excrement. He sat near
the lavatories, with large heaps of excrement piled in front of
him. Each time a devotee passed him, he would call out,
“Bombay halwa [sweets]—very tasty—want to eat? Can weigh
and give you some” (Feuerstein, 1992).
South Park Yoga.
***
By the time of Muktananda’s death in 1982, his SYDA Foundation

operated eleven ashrams and hundreds of meditation centers world-
wide. He was initially co-succeeded by his disciple Gurumayi (1955 –
present) and her younger brother. Following an alleged power strug-
gle in the mid-1980s in which that latter sibling left the organization
under disputed circumstances, however, Gurumayi rules alone (Har-
ris, 1994).
Allegations of abuses and harassment by SYDA can be found at
www.leavingsiddhayoga.net, as well as in Harris (1994).
CHAPTER XVIII
THE MANGO KID

(BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH)
[Rajneesh] stated that he himself had attained [Enlightenment]

at the age of twenty-one.... [H]e went on to declare that ... there
was only one Enlightened Master at any particular time, and
that he was the one (Milne, 1986).
The Rajneesh Bible ... was really “the first and last religion”
(Gordon, 1987).
BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH, BORN in 1931, achieved his first satori/

samadhi at age fourteen. Prior to embarking on a world mission
which was to secure his place as one of the world’s most infamous
guru-figures, he served as a philosophy professor at central India’s
Jabalpur University in the late ’50s and early ’60s.
In 1974, he founded his first ashram in Poona (Pune), southeast
of Bombay.
Rajneesh’s followers have reportedly included the Japanese
composer Kitaro, and the former Françoise Ruddy. She earlier, along
with her then-husband Albert, had produced The Godfather (Fitzger-
ald, 1986). They and Bhagwan Rajneesh’s other disciples followed
teachings which were a combination of “rascal”/“crazy wisdom” be-
havior, tantric sexual practices, and often-violent (i.e., to the point of
130
THE MANGO KID 131
reported broken bones) Western human potential movement (cf. Fritz

Perls, etc.) encounter groups.
Being renowned as the “Guru of the Vagina,” Rajneesh was, of
course, said to be sleeping with a selection of his female disciples,
particularly via “special darshans” granted to them in the move-
ment’s foundling/fondling years. Vivek, one of the earliest and closest
of those, was claimed to be the reincarnation of Mary Magdalene
(Milne, 1986).
Sometimes [Bhagwan] would ask attractive women to strip off

in front of him and lie naked while he peered at them intently.
Then, after satisfying himself, he would ask them to get
dressed again. He also had couples make love in front of him,
a definite case of voyeurism....
In the later years, in Poona, many sexual experiments
were tried. Bhagwan told one woman how to overcome her
phobia of rats: she should indulge in oral sex.... In another tan-
tric session at Poona, the male participants had to eat a ripe
mango from between their female partners’ legs. The mangoes
were very popular with everyone (Milne, 1986).
In the midst of that revelry, vasectomies were “suggested” for

the ashram men—a quarter of whom complied.
In 1976, the homophobic (as per Andrew Harvey [2000] and
Storr [1996]) Rajneesh made it known that he was going to be select-
ing twelve female “mediums” from the ashram for nightly, restricted-
group “energy darshans.” The purpose of those was to be the trans-
ferring of his energy through them to the community, and to the world
at large.
As to the characteristics which Bhagwan was looking for in his
mediums, he soon explained:
[O]nly women with large breasts could hope for the honor. “I
have been tortured by small-breasted women for many lives
together,” he announced to a startled audience, “and I will not
do it in this life!” (Milne, 1986).
At least one of those twelve Buddhalicious Babes was reportedly

instructed not to wear panties to the nightly “energy transferring” ses-
sions.
Rajneesh has said at some time that underwear interferes with

the passage of energy (Gordon, 1987).
Former mediums claimed to have had sexual contact with

Bhagwan for the purpose of “stimulating our lower chakras” ...
and for “orchestrating our energies” (Palmer and Sharma,
1993).
He would manipulate my genitals, masturbate me, but it was

also as if he was rewiring my circuits (in Gordon, 1987).
***
There were few legal ways in which a Westerner could earn

money [to stay at the Poona ashram], and before long many of
the girls turned to prostitution....
The other main way of making money in those days was
to mount a drug run (Milne, 1986).
For the same financial reasons,
a large number of strippers working from London’s SoHo to

San Francisco’s North Beach were sannyasins (Strelley, 1987).
In Rajneesh’s parlance, sannyasis/sannyasins were simply initi-

ated disciples, not seasoned monks as the term would be taken to refer
to in other traditions.
By the late 1970s and early ’80s, this particular “inner city path
to spiritual enlightenment” was beginning to have some predictable
reported side-effects:
Three British sannyasins ... were arrested on smuggling

charges in Paris in 1979. The most ambitious known smug-
gling attempt was made in 1979 when fifty kilograms of mari-
juana were packed into the frame and furnishings of a hippie-
style bus traveling from [Poona] to Europe. About twenty dis-
ciples had invested in the deal and another twenty had worked
on the bus. The contraband, however, was discovered in Yugo-
slavia, and three sannyasins were put in jail for a year (Man-
galwadi, 1992).
THE MANGO KID 133
One sannyasi murdered another in one of the hut villages

about a mile from the ashram, and another was found dead
with multiple stab wounds beneath the nearby Mulla-Matha
bridge (Milne, 1986).
In the midst of those difficulties, seeking to expand his work and

desiring to escape a reported $4 million in unpaid income taxes, Raj-
neesh quietly left India for the United States in 1981, arriving via a
747 jet in New Jersey.
Pausing at the top of the departure stairs as he exited the plane,
the sage expansively proclaimed:
I am the Messiah America has been waiting for (in Milne,

1986).
And this was when the real problems began.

Rajneesh first settled in at the Montclair castle in New Jersey,
and then founded an ashram (“Rajneeshpuram”) in eastern Oregon,
purchasing the 120-square-mile Big Muddy ranch in Wasco County
there. (That ranch had formerly been the barren filming location of
several John Wayne westerns.) His eventual goal was to establish a
million-population city in that region.
So as to not unnecessarily alarm their conservative neighbors,
the proselytizing materials available from the ashram were screened
and re-evaluated. Consequently, “The Fuck Tape”—consisting of
Rajneesh “extolling and describing at length the forty different possi-
ble uses of the word ‘fuck’” (Milne, 1986)—was recast as “a dis-
course in which Bhagwan makes jokes about human relationships.”
Rajneesh went on to assemble the world’s largest private collec-
tion of Rolls-Royces—ninety-three in total. The combination of
Bhagwan’s public silence, increasing isolation from his surrounding
ashram community, and large Rolls-Royce collection, soon mani-
fested as the new phenomenon of “car-shan,” or “drive-by blessings.”
There, the faithful would line up to catch a glimpse of His Holiness
during his daily trips into the nearest town—Antelope, population
thirty-nine—forty-five minutes away.
Meanwhile, privileged residents and visitors to Oregon and the
Rajneesh ashrams/communes elsewhere enjoyed horseback and air-
craft rides, boating, swimming and river rafting.
To complete the Club Med appeal, discos, bar lounges and

gaming tables were made available in late 1983 (Palmer and
Sharma, 1993).
And thereby was the table set for the fortunate few to “eat, drink
and be merry,” for
shortly before [Rajneesh] came out of his three and a half year
silence, he prophesied with great drama and precision that two-
thirds of humanity would die of the disease AIDS by the year
2000 (Palmer and Sharma, 1993).
That off-base prediction was based on Bhagwan’s understanding

of a Nostradamus verse. (For a debunking of the latter purported seer,
see Randi’s [1993] The Mask of Nostradamus.)
Fears that insiders at the Oregon ashram may have been plotting
to murder Rajneesh soon took root, however. Thus, in late 1984,
Bhagwan and his “right-hand woman,” Sheela, allegedly commenced
with spending $100,000 per month on the installation of wiretapping
and bugging equipment throughout Rajneeshpuram (Milne, 1986).
Directing their attention as well to concerns outside of the ash-
ram, followers in the same year
spiked salad bars at ten restaurants in [nearby The Dalles, Ore-

gon] with salmonella and sickened about 750 people (Flaccus,
2001).
The goal there was apparently to incapacitate large numbers of

voters, allowing the Rajneesh-sponsored candidates to prevail in
county elections. A contamination of the local water supply was re-
portedly planned for after the “test” restaurant poisoning.
Investigations into that salmonella outbreak ultimately revealed
an alleged plot to kill the former U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Charles
Turner. Though the attack was never actually carried out, in the hope
of derailing the investigation into their other activities some of Raj-
neesh’s loyal followers nevertheless reportedly
assembled a hit team in 1985. They bought guns, watched

Turner’s home, office and car, and discussed ways to assassi-
nate him (Larabee, 2000).
THE MANGO KID 135
Following all that, and with the continuing failure of his apoca-
lyptic predictions for the near-end of the world to materialize—as
they had previously dissipated in 1978 and 1980—Rajneesh was de-
ported from the U.S. for immigration violations in 1985. He was re-
fused entry by at least twenty countries before finally returning to his
old ashram in Poona, thereby leaving Americans either waiting longer
for their Messiah ... or being glad that he had left.
The Oregon ashram closed down soon after Bhagwan’s depar-
ture. (Various followers were later convicted on assault, attempted
murder, wiretapping and food poisoning charges [Larabee, 2000].)
Today, it serves as a summer Bible camp for teenagers safely devoted
to following their own, more conservatively acceptable (but still long-
haired, robe-wearing, “only one Enlightened Master”) Messiah.
***
The use of consciousness-altering drugs was never officially ap-

proved-of in either the Poona or the Oregon ashrams. In spite of that,
by 1982 Rajneesh was allegedly sniffing nitrous oxide (i.e., laughing
gas) to get high on a daily basis. On one occasion, six months into
that, reportedly reclining in his own $12,000 dentist chair and bab-
bling,
Bhagwan went on: “I am so relieved that I do not have to pre-

tend to be enlightened any more. Poor Krishnamurti ... he still
has to pretend” (Milne, 1986).
Krishnamurti—who actually considered Rajneesh to be a “crimi-

nal” for his abuse of the guru-disciple relationship—was the only
“sage” whom Rajneesh had ever acknowledged as an equal. (Bhag-
wan himself denied being a guru, but those denials are no more con-
vincing than were Krishnamurti’s own.) Indeed, by contrast to their
man-made, imported white-sand Krishnamurti Lake in Oregon, in an
open show of contempt for another of his “main competitors” in the
enlightenment industry, Rajneesh named a sewage lagoon there after
Swami Muktananda. The latter’s own guru, the shit-eating Nit-
yananda, would surely have approved ... and perhaps even gone for a
dip.
At any rate, having returned to India, Bhagwan’s “enlighten-

ment” soon improved to the extent where he could announce that
Gautama the Buddha had entered his body, and that this had
been verified by the seeress of one of the most ancient Shinto
shrines in Japan (Hamilton, 1998).
Rajneesh, as the reincarnation of Gautama Buddha, fits the

model of the Second Coming ushering in the Thousand Years
of Peace (Palmer and Sharma, 1993).
The Buddha himself, however, made do with a simple Tree in

his own spiritual practice or sadhana, never having had access to a
“Bodhi Chair” of Enlightenment.
Of course, Rajneesh was by no means the first “spiritual seeker”
to reportedly make use of nitrous oxide in his quest:
William James thought he had recorded the ultimate mystery

under the influence of nitrous oxide. On returning to his nor-
mal state, he eagerly consulted the paper on which he had
scrawled the great message (DeRopp, 1968).
That message?
Hogamous, Higamous,
Man is polygamous.
Higamous, Hogamous,
Woman is monogamous.
***
Rajneesh died of a heart attack in 1990 at age fifty-eight, but not be-
fore changing his name to “Osho” (“Beloved Master”), under which
authorship his books are currently being marketed. His Poona ashram
continues to host devotees from around the world—up to 10,000 at a
time—in an increasingly resort-like, “Club MEDitation” atmosphere.
Indeed, the environment currently features waterfalls, a giant swim-
ming pool, a sauna and cybercafe, and tennis courts where “zennis”
(non-competitive Zen tennis) is played.
THE MANGO KID 137
“Osho has become a cocktail party name,” said Sanjay Bharthi,

thirty-four, a freelance graphic designer who described the
Osho lifestyle as “so aesthetic, so juicy, so modern, and at the
same time so peaceful” (Waldman, 2002).
In India the once-persecuted Rajneesh is currently the coun-

try’s best-selling author. His books are on display in the fed-
eral parliament library—an honor accorded to only one other,
Mahatma Gandhi (Hamilton, 1998).
Indeed, worldwide Osho book (two thousand titles in forty-four

languages) and audio-book sales now surpass $1 million annually
(McCafferty, 1999). There is, of course, scant mention in those hon-
ored books of
• Rolls-Royces
• Homophobia
• Prostitution
• Drug-running
• Tax evasion
• Wiretapping
• Salmonella
• Assassination plots
• Nitrous oxide sniffing, or
• Mangoes ... in syrup
CHAPTER XIX
DA AVATAR,
DA BOMB, DA BUM
(ADI DA, A.K.A. DA AVATAR, DA
LOVE-ANANDA, DA AVABHASA, DA
AVADHOOTA, DAU LOLOMA,
MASTER DA, DA FREE JOHN, BUBBA
FREE JOHN, FRANKLIN JONES)
The works of Bubba Free John are unsurpassed (Wilber,

2001a).
It looks like we have an Avatar here. I can’t believe it, he is

really here. I’ve been waiting for such a one all my life (Alan
Watts, in [Da, 1974]).
Adi Da ... is the Divine World-Teacher, the Giver of Divine

Enlightenment, Who has made all myths unnecessary and all
seeking obsolete....
The Divine Avatar, in the guise of “Franklin Jones,” had
not come to Liberate just a few others, individuals who might
be thought qualified for such a hair-raising “adventure.” Not at
all. He had come to all beings (in Da, 1995).
[Da] has repeatedly said, in recent months, that the year 2000
is the year he will be recognized by the world. He has even
138
DA AVATAR, DA BOMB, DA BUM 139
gone so far as to claim that Christians will recognize him as

the Second Coming of Christ (Elias, 2000).
Da Love-Ananda tells [his disciples] that he can do no wrong,

and they, in all seriousness, see in him God incarnate (Feuer-
stein, 1992).
BORN ON LONG ISLAND, NY, in 1939, “the guise of Franklin Jones”

lived until age two in an internal state which he later called “the
Bright.”
[A]s a baby, I remember only crawling around inquisitively

with a boundless feeling of Joy, Light, and Freedom in the
middle of my head.... I was a radiant Form, the Source of
Energy, Love-Bliss, and Light in the midst of a world that is
entirely Energy, Love-Bliss, and Light. I was the power of Re-
ality (Da, 1995; all capitalization is in the original).
Following the gradual fading of that perspective as he grew up,

the future guru earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Colum-
bia University in New York, in 1961. At one point, when asked by his
uncle Richard what he wanted to do with his life, Da (1995) ex-
pressed the serious wish to “save the world.”
And yet, as Wilber (1983) himself has noted:
[A]ny group “out to save the world” is potentially problematic,

because it rests on an archaically narcissistic base that looks
“altruistic” or “idealistic” but in fact is very egocentric, very
primitive, and very capable of coming to primitive ends by
primitive means.
In late 1964, Jones began studying kundalini yoga in New York

City under “Rudi” (Swami Rudrananda), a disciple of Muktananda.
In a sentimental mood, Da Free John once mused, “Rudi loved

men and I love women. Together we could have fucked the
world” (Lowe, 1996).
Jones visited Muktananda’s ashram in India in 1968. By May of

1970, he had made two additional similar trips. Experiences produced
in Jones by the intense meditations overseas included a vision of the
Hindu goddess Shakti.
Following that, while meditating in the (Ramakrishna-Viveka-
nanda) Vedanta Temple in Hollywood in the autumn of 1970, Jones
had a spiritual “experience where there was no experience whatso-
ever.” Through that, he was “spontaneously and permanently reawak-
ened in the Enlightened Condition he had enjoyed at birth.” Describ-
ing that non-experience, Jones has said:
I felt the Divine Shakti appear in Person, Pressed against my

own natural body, and, altogether, against my Infinitely Ex-
panded, and even formless, Form. She Embraced me, Openly
and Utterly, and we Combined with One Another in Divine
(and Motionless, and spontaneously Yogic) “Sexual Union”
(Da, 1995; all capitalization is in the original).
Or, more colorfully, in referring to the same awakening:
The Goddess used to say, “Yield to me,” and I fucked her

brains loose (Free John, 1974).
In 1972, Jones and a friend opened the Ashram Bookstore on

Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles, attracting his first devotees, “many
of them street people” (Lattin, 1985a).
After another visit to Muktananda in India in 1973, Jones en-
acted the first of his many name-changes, becoming Bubba Free John.
(In the late ’70s, Free John took the “Da” epithet—an ancient name of
God meaning “the Giver”—and, in 1994, added the “Adi,” thus be-
coming not merely Realized but Palindromic.) He also founded his
first ashram on a former resort in Lake County, on Cobb Mountain,
California. That location is still referred to by his followers as the
Mountain of Attention.
The following year, Free John declared himself to be “the Divine
Lord in human Form” (Gourley and Edmiston, 1997).
[Those who] follow Jones believe he is an “adept,” a person

who came into this world already enlightened with eternal
truth. The sect’s publications also call Jesus an “adept,” but
make it clear that Jones is considered more important (Ley-

decker, 1985).
Also in 1974, during his “Garbage and the Goddess” period,

Bubba apparently
started his “sexual theater,” involving the switching of part-

ners, sexual orgies, the making of pornographic movies and in-
tensified sexual practices (Feuerstein, 1996).
The Mill Valley Record (Colin, et al., 1985) further reported:
[James] Steinberg [head of the Hermitage Service Order] says

the destruction [of the pornographic films] took place a few
months after they were made. Steinberg also says that the
church’s dildo collection was either sold or destroyed, he isn’t
sure which.
“The church’s dildo collection.” Sold or destroyed. Amen.

“If you’ll now open your hymnals to the centerfold, let us all
sing together, ‘God, Oh God, I’m Coming.’”
Interestingly, one of Da’s lingerie-modeling daughters, Shawnee
Free Jones, has more recently appeared as an actress in L.A. Confi-
dential and Baywatch.
At any rate, by 1985 the sect had around one thousand active
members—a third of them living in Marin County, California—with
another 20,000 on its mailing lists. (To this day, active membership
remains at around a thousand.) Members there were reportedly ex-
pected to tithe from 10 to 15% of their income to the new church; in
the higher levels of the spiritual order, they were asked to donate as
much as they could.
In that same year, however, the alleged concerns of former disci-
ples began to surface in public, as exposed in a series of articles pub-
lished in the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner:
[Da, they claim] would have them watch pornographic movies

and engage in anal sex—sometimes in front of him, and some-
times tell them to go to their bedrooms (in Lattin, 1985a).
As a child, [a devotee of Da] had been sexually abused by a

neighbor. To help her through her sexual fears [she] said, Da
Free John told her to have oral sex with three group members,
and then the guru had sex with her himself.
“I was hysterical,” she said. “After it was over, I went out
into the parking lot and found an open car, and had a good cry
and went to sleep. I was traumatized. It’s years later that I
came to terms with it” (Butler, 1985a).
In later years, a married couple of Da Party Animal’s followers

were apparently invited over to his house, only to find the guru in
bed, drinking beer and surrounded by cigarette smoke.
In short order, the wife was allegedly prepared by other follow-
ers, to be taken sexually by the guru. “And so she was.”
Suppressing his “irrational feelings” into numbness, however,
the husband soon found a suitable rationalization for that, convincing
himself that the guru was simply teaching him to not be emotionally
attached to his wife.
And yet, doubts linger, both about whether the same lessons
could possibly have been learned in some easier way, and otherwise:
There is one thing that has persistently bothered me about the

incident, and that was the pressure on me to drink alcohol in an
attempt to get me drunk. I still feel I was being manipulated on
this count. I also never quite understood why we were asked to
keep the whole incident quiet (in Feuerstein, 1992).
Yes, interesting questions, all.
***
As of the mid-’80s, the Daists (followers of Da Guru) operated a

“Garden of Lions” school in upstate New York. Of the pupils there, it
was reported that one thirteen-year-old child and his classmates
adorned and venerated a bowling ball. As the student himself put it:
I always felt a love-connection towards the ball and served it

remembering that the Master would touch it someday and give
it his attention (in Lake County, 1985).
For my own part, that reminds me of nothing so much as grow-

ing up with the ’70s sitcom, What’s Happening!! Specifically, the
episode where Rerun got “brainwashed” by a “cult,” and ended up
worshiping a head of lettuce named Ralph.
It seemed funnier then, than it does now. (No word on whether
Da’s bowling ball had a name.)
***
In any closed society run by a “Divine Lord in human form,” of

course, it would be rare for any of the peer-pressured members to
openly question “the thread-count of the emperor’s clothes,” as it
were. Indeed, as former residents of Da’s community have alleged:
Anybody who dares to stand up to [Adi Da’s] bullying is

quickly sent packing (Elias, 2000a).
Elias himself taught at Naropa in the late 1970s (Bob, 2000), and
later worked as a typesetter in the Dawn Horse Press in the early ’80s.
On another occasion, Da Guru was asked about the source of his
apparent arrogance. A former community member reported his re-
sponse:
I only do this as an act.... It could be much worse (in Lake

County, 1985).
Indeed, Jones himself has apparently claimed elsewhere that, re-

gardless of what his behaviors might superficially appear to be, he is
nevertheless “always Teaching.”
And yet, the contexts in which the same reported behaviors ap-
pear, but where they cannot reasonably be excused as a mere “act,”
betray the real motivations. For example, consider Da’s alleged re-
sponse in a dispute over noise coming from an ashram adjacent to his
Hawaiian one, run by a rival guru. After an unsuccessful attempt by
Jones’ followers to make so much racket at a big New Year’s party
that their opponent would be sure to support a noise ordinance,
Jones [allegedly] went completely livid, swearing and criticiz-

ing them for coming up with the idea for this, when he himself
had endorsed it.
“He always preached that people shouldn’t come up with

a strategy or plan to life. Here he was, demanding ‘Give me a
strategy’ to get this guy” (Neary, 1985).
Or contemplate Jones’ alleged reaction (reported in the Mill Val-

ley Record) to the devotee laborers on a construction project having
worked many sixteen-hour days in building a home for him:
The work schedule and the meager fare took a toll on the work
force. On Christmas Day, [Mark] Miller says he told Jones,
“The people are tired. They need a break.” Miller says Jones
replied, “They will work for me until they drop and then
they’ll get up and work some more” (Colin, et al., 1985).
Of course, such evident dearth of compassion has been demon-

strated many times before—by Da Scrooge if not Da Avatar.
***
In 1980, Ken Wilber penned a fawning foreword for Adi Da’s Scien-
tific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the
White House! Most of it was spent in arguing that Da was not creating
a harmful “cult” around himself, but Wilber also found space to in-
clude the following praise:
[M]y opinion is that we have, in the person of Da Free John, a

Spiritual Master and religious genius of the ultimate degree. I
assure you I do not mean that lightly. I am not tossing out
high-powered phrases to “hype” the works of Da Free John. I
am simply offering to you my own considered opinion: Da
Free John’s teaching is, I believe, unsurpassed by that of any
other spiritual Hero, of any period, of any place, of any time,
of any persuasion.
Not finished with hyperbole—or “syrupy devotionalism,” as one

critic (Kazlev, 2003) reasonably put it—in 1985 Wilber contributed
effusive text for the front matter of Adi Da’s The Dawn Horse Testa-
ment:
This is not merely my personal opinion; this is a perfectly ob-

vious fact, available to anyone of intelligence, sensitivity, and
integrity: The Dawn Horse Testament is the most ecstatic,
most profound, most complete, most radical, and most com-
prehensive single spiritual text ever to be penned and con-
fessed by the Human Transcendental Spirit.
Obviously, any sincere seeker reading such ecstatic praise from

the most highly respected “genius” in consciousness studies (as
Wilber has been regarded for the past quarter of a century) might be
inclined to experience for himself the teachings of such a unique,
“greatest living” Adept. Indeed, had I come across those endorse-
ments in my own (teenage years, at the time) search, and been aware
of and unduly awed by Wilber’s status in the consciousness studies
community, I myself might well have foolishly taken such exaggera-
tions seriously enough to experience Adi Da’s community discipline
first-hand.
How unsettling, then, to discover a 1987 interview with Yoga
Journal, only a few short years after the Dawn Horse ejaculations,
where Wilber stated his opinion that Adi Da’s “entire situation has
become very problematic.” Nearly a decade later (1996a), he ex-
plained: “‘Problematic’ was the euphemism that sociologists at that
time were using for Jonestown.”
For my own part, not being a sociologist, I would never have
caught on to the meaning of that “unsafe word” without having it ex-
plained to me ... albeit years after the fact, here. I suspect that I am
not alone in that regard.
No matter: Three years later, in 1990, Wilber was back to con-
tributing endorsements for Da’s teachings, this time to the humbly
titled The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher:
The event of Heart-Master Da is an occasion for rejoicing, for,

without any doubt whatsoever, he is the first Western Avatar to
appear in the history of the world.... His Teaching contains the
most concentrated wealth of transcendent wisdom found any-
where, I believe, in the spiritual literature of the world, modern
or ancient, Eastern or Western (in Bonder, 1990; italics added).
Note that, in the above quote, Wilber is evidently considering

himself fit not merely to pronounce on the degree of enlightenment of
others, but even to confirm their avatar status, “without any doubt
whatsoever.”
Of the above author Bonder (2003) himself—who has since in-
dependently adopted the status of teacher, without Adi Da’s blessing
—Wilber has more recently declared:
Saniel Bonder is one in whom the Conscious Principle is

awakened.
Again, note the oracular nature of the statement, as no mere ex-

pression of opinion, but rather as a without-doubt, categorical evalua-
tion of another person’s spiritual enlightenment—as if Wilber himself
were able to see into others’ minds, or clairvoyantly discern their de-
gree of conscious evolution.
Others, however, have reasonably questioned the possibility,
even in principle, of anyone executing such over-the-top insight:
[B]oth mystics and sympathetic writers about mysticism are

just wrong if they think that there is a way of telling whether
the other person has had a genuine experience or just pretends
to have had one....
A man may write excellent love poetry without ever hav-
ing been a comparable lover; it is the writer’s skill as a writer
that makes his words convincing, not his skill as a lover. The
mystic’s talk about his experience may be skillful or clumsy,
but that does not improve or weaken his actual experience
(Bharati, 1976).
Bharati himself was both a scholar and a swami of the Rama-

krishna Order.
A mere seven years before the aforementioned “problematic”
Yoga Journal piece, Wilber (in Da, 1980) had again ironically been
“protesting too much,” in print, that Adi Da was not creating a harm-
ful environment around himself:
[N]owhere is [Da] more critical of the “cultic” attitude than he

is towards those who surround him.... I have never heard Da
Free John criticize anyone as forcefully as he does those who
would approach him chronically from the childish stance of
trying to win the favor of the “cultic hero.”
Other fans of Da—even those who have comparably considered

him to be “the ultimate expression of the Truth residing in all relig-
ions”—however, have claimed to find in his followers exactly what
Wilber would evidently rather not see:
The problem was they were much too friendly, much too
happy, and far too nice. More plainly put, they were all busy
breathlessly following their own bliss. Not only this, but unless
my eyes were deceiving me, they all looked like maybe they
came from the same neighborhood or the same college. It was
uncanny really. And very disquieting, as well. I mean, they all
looked and sounded almost exactly alike.
My God, they’re pod people, I thought (Thomas Alhburn,
in [Austin, 1999]; italics added).
Hassan (1990) gives a completely plausible explanation for such

phenomena:
One reason why a group of [alleged] cultists may strike even a

naïve outsider as spooky or weird is that everyone has similar
odd mannerisms, clothing styles, and modes of speech. What
the outsider is seeing is the personality of the leader passed
down through several layers of modeling.
Prior to actually meeting Adi Da and his followers, Alhburn had

not only blurbed for Da’s books but had actually written a foreword
for one of them. Also blurbing have been “stages of dying” expert
Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, and Barbara Marx-Hubbard. The former was
credited by Time magazine as being one of the “100 Most Important
Thinkers” of the twentieth century. The latter, Marx-Hubbard, is the
president and a founding member of The Foundation for Conscious
Evolution; she was once called “the best informed human on the con-
cept of futurism,” by Buckminster Fuller.
Sad. Very sad.
Wilber closed his aforementioned (1996a) admonitions regarding
Da Seclusive Avatar—sequestered in Fiji, by that point—with the
relative caution that, until the day when the “World Teacher consents
to enter the World,” one might just keep a “safe distance” as a student
of Da’s writings, rather than as a resident of his community. As to
how Adi Da “re-entering the world” from his island seclusion would
alleviate the “problematic” aspects of his teachings, however, that

was not made clear.
By comparison, would Jim Jones re-entering the world from his
isolated agricultural commune in Guyana have made his teachings
safe? If not, why would a comparable re-entry have been the solution
to the “problematic” (Wilber’s word) aspects of Adi Da? Isn’t it better
for the world at large—if not for their unfortunate, already duped fol-
lowers—if these misfits do isolate themselves?
At any rate, none of the above milquetoast caveats from Wilber
have ever been included in any of his books, where they might have
reached “a hundred thousand” people (Wilber, 2000a). Rather, in
terms of kw’s own attempts at promoting that version of reality, the
(1996a) letter exists, at the time of this writing, only on his website ...
buried in the Archives section, not sharing the home page with his
many accolades.
Wilber later (1998a) offered an explanatory open letter to the
Adi Da community. That was posted anonymously (i.e., evidently not
by Ken himself) on the Shambhala KW Forum for date 8/1/01 in the
Open Discussion area, a full three years after the fact. (That forum
itself has existed since early 2000.) There, he clarified his position on
Da Realizer, back-tracking significantly from any insight which one
might have been tempted to credit him from 1996, and explicitly stat-
ing that he had not renounced his view of (or love for, or devotion
toward) Da as Realizer. Rather, he argued simply that Da’s “World
Teacher” status enjoindered upon him the maintaining of a presence
in the world, and the initiation of an “even more aggressive outreach
program” by the community, as opposed to his ongoing seclusion.
An “even more aggressive outreach program.” To put a positive
spin on a “problematic” situation, and “spread the word” to more peo-
ple, thereby doing more harm? Or perhaps simply to warn potential
devotees as to “what they’re getting themselves into,” as if that would
then clear up all of the reported problems with the community?
(Would “Jim Jones with a warning label” have been the solution to
his “problematic” craziness?)
Again, as posters in Bob (2000)—themselves making no claim to
genius, but clearly adept in common sense—have insightfully (and
independently) pointed out:
I find it absurd that Wilber seems to attach more importance to

criticizing Da’s failure to appear in public forums than he does
to examining the very serious [alleged] abuses of trust and

misuse of power that have [reportedly] been perpetrated by Da
under the guise of spiritual teaching. In light of the well-
documented [reported] problems that Da has created in his
own life and his follower’s [sic] lives, it is completely irrele-
vant to any evaluation of Da whether or not he accepts Ken’s
challenge to go out into the world at large. Who cares! Why
would anyone want to see Da broaden his influence by speak-
ing to a larger audience?
Precisely.
The full text of Wilber’s aforementioned (1998a) open letter to
the Daist Community is eminently worth reading, toward one’s own
disillusion regarding the caliber of advice given by even the “bright-
est lights” in the spiritual marketplace. To summarize its contents:
Wilber states that he neither regrets nor retracts his past endorsements
of Adi Da; that it is only for cultural and legal considerations (i.e., for
evident protection when “Da Shit hits Da Fan”) that he can no longer
publicly give a blanket recommendation for people to follow Da; that
he is pleased that his own writings have brought people to Da Avatar
and hopes that they will continue to have that effect in the future; and
that he still recommends that “students who are ready” become disci-
ples/devotees of Da.
A month and a half after distributing the above nuggets of wis-
dom to the Adi Da community, Wilber (1998b) reconfirmed his posi-
tion in another open letter, posted as of this writing on his website.
There, he states—with rarely encountered opacity—that the “real dif-
ficulty of ‘the strange case of Adi Da’ is that the guru principle is nei-
ther understood nor accepted by our culture” (italics added). He fur-
ther opines that
for those individuals who realize full well the extremely risky
nature of the adventure, but who feel a strong pull toward
complete and total surrender of their lives to a spiritual Mas-
ter, I can certainly recommend Adi Da.... [H]e is one of the
greatest spiritual Realizers of all time, in my opinion.
Note further that the related title, “The Strange Case of Franklin
Jones,” was used in 1996 by David Lane and Scott Lowe, in their ex-
posés of Da/Jones and his ashram environment. Unless that was a
common phrase going around in the mid-’90s, then, it would seem

that Wilber was likely aware of their earlier, insightful critique of the
dynamics reportedly going on within Adi Da’s community. Rather
than properly absorbing the information in that, however, he has evi-
dently simply seen fit to give his own, purportedly more valuable ver-
sion of the same—even though looking on merely from a safe dis-
tance, not as a first-hand, residential participant. That is sad, since
Lowe and Lane have offered real insight into the situation, while
Wilber has consistently failed miserably to do the same.
One further assumes that in praising Da’s spiritual state, Wilber
was referring more to the man’s later realizations than to early in-
sights such as the following:
I remember once for a period of days I was aware of a world

that appeared to survive in our moon. It was a superphysical or
astral world where beings were sent off to birth on the Earth or
other worlds, and then their bodies were enjoyed cannibalisti-
cally by the older generation on the moon, or they were forced
to work as physical and mental slaves (Da, 1995).
Then again, the later realizations have their problems, too:
In 1993, Adi Da Revealed that Ramakrishna and his principal

disciple, Swami Vivekananda, are the deeper-personality vehi-
cle of His bodily human Incarnation (in Da, 1995).
“Ramakrishna, Part II: Return of the Booby.”

Of course, unless one is inclined to take the visions of “astral
moon cannibal slaves” on the part of “Da greatest living Realizer”
seriously, one arrives at serious concerns as to Adi Da’s mental stabil-
ity. After all, skeptics have long rightly held that even a single in-
stance of any given medium (e.g., Blavatsky) or ostensibly siddhi-
possessing sage being caught “cheating” in “manifesting” objects,
casts doubt on every “miracle” that had previously been attributed to
the individual. Likewise, if even one aspect of an individual’s enlight-
enment has been hallucinated but taken as real, the potential exists for
it to all have been the product of delusion in a psychiatric, not a meta-
physical, sense.
So you have to ask yourself: Do you believe that there are B-

movie-like “cannibal masters/slaves” on the astral counterpart to our
moon?
Wilber, at least, seems (in Da, 1985) to have no doubt, overall:
I am as certain of this Man as I am of anything I have written.
Well put. I, too, am as certain of Adi Da’s unparalleled enlight-

enment, “astral moon cannibal slaves” and noble character as I am of
anything Wilber has ever written. We will investigate that idea further
in the coming chapters.
***
Over the years, Adi Da has taken credit for numerous “miracles,”
such as a “brilliant corona that stood around the sun for a full day” (in
Free John, 1974). No scientist or skeptic, though, would ever accept
such anecdotal claims as evidence of a miraculous control over na-
ture. And with good reason, particularly given Lowe’s (1996) eye-
witness testimony of the same “miraculous event”:
I had been outdoors all that afternoon. Not only had I seen
nothing out of the ordinary, but no one within my earshot had
mentioned anything at all about the miracle at the very time it
was supposedly happening! I was not trying to be difficult or
obtuse, but this proved too much for me. If a great miracle had
occurred, why was it not mentioned at the time? I asked a
number of devotees what they had seen and why they had not
called everyone’s attention to it, but received no satisfactory
answers. It slowly emerged that I was not alone in missing this
miracle; my skeptical cohorts on the community’s fringe were
similarly in the dark.
There might even have been some (natural) coronal effect visible
to some members of the community. And they, being “desperate for
confirmation of their Master’s divinity, [may have] exaggerated the
significance of minor synchronisms, atmospheric irregularities, and
the like.” That, however, would still hardly qualify as a miracle. It
would further do nothing to ease one’s concern about the members of
the community, like Lowe, who didn’t see that “authenticated mira-
cle,” reportedly being quickly demoted to positions of lower status for

not going along with the group version of that reality.
One is strongly reminded, in all that, of the research on confor-
mity done in the 1950s by psychologist Solomon Asch. For there,
experimental subjects in the midst of other, unknown (to them) con-
federates, were required to match the lengths of two lines. After the
planted confederates had deliberately given wrong answers, the sub-
jects were asked for their responses.
[T]hey chose the same wrong answer, even though they did not
agree with it (Lalich, 2004).
That is, when it comes to choosing between being right and be-
ing liked for fitting in, we regularly choose the latter.
***
A classic experiment in social psychology involves a participant

standing on a busy city sidewalk, and staring up into the sky at noth-
ing in particular. When performed by just that single participant, few
of the people passing by will glance up, and probably no one will ac-
tually stop to stare up with the individual.
Should you, as that participant, bring along several friends to the
same spot to look upward with you, however, the result will be quite
different:
Within sixty seconds, a crowd of passersby will have stopped

to crane their necks skyward with the group. For those pedes-
trians who do not join you, the pressure to look up at least
briefly will be nearly irresistible (Cialdini, 2001).
Indeed, in one experiment performed by Stanley Milgram and

his colleagues, 80% of the passersby were drawn to look at the empty
area.
In that light, one may better appreciate the importance of, for ex-
ample, Adi Da’s first “street people” disciples. For, when beginning
any movement, it is less important that the first converts be of any
high caliber than that they simply be “warm bodies.” As soon as a
small group is thus formed, others will “look up at least briefly,” or
“stop and stare” altogether, simply for having seen the social proof of
the validity of your new path in the very existence of that group.
***
Da’s “sun corona” manifestation was again included as a documented

“miracle” in his (1974) self-published, and thus Implicitly-Approved-
By-Him, Garbage and the Goddess. (Nearly all of the “enlightened”
figures mentioned herein have gotten their writings into print only via
self-publication.) And if, as Lowe hints, the “miracle” itself never
happened, Da of all people would have known that from the begin-
ning. Why then would he have proceeded with allowing it into print?
To publish something like that in the hope of decreasing “cult-like”
following would have been an interesting approach indeed, since it
could only have had exactly the opposite effect.
Further, since Wilber had read that book prior to writing the
above 1980 and 1985 forewords—it is listed in the bibliography for
his (1977) Spectrum of Consciousness—one must ask: Does this
mean that he was accepting that apparently non-existent “miracle” as
being valid? One cannot help but assume so, since the alternative
would be to say that Wilber regarded Da as not accurately presenting
his spiritual accomplishments, but still chose to pen his gushing fore-
words.
Da’s “corona miracle” seems to have come into being not via
any trickery, but simply via an “emperor’s new clothes” conformist
mentality on the part of the witnesses in his community. Still, if one
such “verified miracle” of Adi Da, “witnessed” by all of the members
in good standing of his society, should thus turn out to be invalid, and
yet be touted as real by the guru himself, how much confidence
should one have, not merely in the community consensus as to Da’s
“great Realization,” but even in the remainder of the claims made by
Da Guru himself?
***
Having heard Wilber’s skewed interpretations of Adi Da’s work and

environment, now read, if you wish, the 1985 exposé series, pre-
served in the Daism Research Index at www.lightmind.com. Then
decide for yourself whether Wilber’s point of view on all this has any
validity at all.
Or, more pointedly, ask yourself how, in the face of all that eas-
ily accessible information, anyone of sound mind and body could still
recommend that others “surrender completely” to someone like Adi
Da. What kind of a “genius” would compare an environment to
Jonestown, for being (in his own words) “problematic,” and yet still
encourage others to “surrender completely” to its god-man leader?!
By the standards of traditional society, [Adi Da] is like the

man in the madhouse claiming to be Napoleon who has con-
vinced a few of the other patients that he is the Boss. But the
people walking around outside the walls of his Loka [i.e., his
world] with-bars-on-the-windows say “Yes, you think you are
Napoleon, but we don’t think so. You claim to be the Most
Enlightened Being Ever Was and Ever Will Be, but we don’t
think so. It just doesn’t add up. By traditional religious stan-
dards, you are quite insane, totally nuts, absolutely bonkers, a
real freakazoid nutcase....”
One man against the world ... and about a thousand peo-
ple have bought his one-way rap (Bob, 2000).
Or, as another disillusioned ex-follower put it:
One can imagine Da in a previous lifetime as a minor Euro-

pean nobleman, exploiting his impoverished serfs, sleeping
with their wives and daughters, and living a splendidly dissi-
pated life of luxury, all in the name of the divine right of kings.
As a model for proper behavior in the twilight of the twentieth
century, Da seems neither better nor worse than, say, Marlon
Brando or Keith Richards (Lowe, 1996).
“Sympathy for the Da-vil.”
***
Sal Luciana was formerly a close friend of Jones from their Scientol-
ogy days in 1968 until their falling-out in 1976. He was credited by
Da with having achieved a “nearly ‘instant enlightenment’” (in Free
John, 1974). He further expressed (in Lattin, 1985a) his own evalua-
tion of Jones’ perspective on the world, as follows:
At this point, I think he really thinks he is God.... If you had

every whim indulged [since 1972], how would you think of
yourself?
And still, “they call him by many names, who is but One God.”
Franklin Jones. Franklin, Benjamin. Franklin Mint.

Bubba Free John. Bubba Louie. Da Quicksdraw.
Da Free John. Da Free Paul. Da Free George. Da Ringo.
Da Love-Ananda. Da Love-Bliss. Da Loves-You, Yeah-Yeah-
Yeah.
Dau Loloma. Dau La’Samba. Ba-Da-Da-Da-Da La Bamba.
Da Do Run Rerun, Da Do Run Run.
De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da.
Master Da. Master John. Master Bates. Da Dildo.
Adi Da. Da Avatar. Da Bomb.
Da Bum.
D’uh.
Zippity Do Da.
Da Hoogivesahoot spent much of the 1980s and ’90s living in

Fiji, on an estate formerly owned by Raymond Burr. He was report-
edly kept company there by thirty long-time devotees, and by his nine
(9) “wives.” Included among those “insignificant others” was Sep-
tember 1976 Playboy centerfold Whitney Kaine (Julie Anderson), a
former cheerleader whom Da Avatar had reportedly stolen away from
her tennis-playing, high-school-sweetheart boyfriend, also a devotee
of his, back in the 1970s.
Well, “La Dee Da.”
CHAPTER XX
SOMETIMES I FEEL
LIKE A GOD
(ANDREW COHEN)
Andrew Cohen is not just a spiritual teacher—he is an inspir-

ing phenomenon. Since his awakening in 1986 he has only
lived, breathed and spoken of one thing: the potential for total
liberation from the bondage of ignorance, superstition and self-
ishness. Powerless to limit his unceasing investigation, he has
looked at the “jewel of enlightenment” from every angle, and
given birth to a teaching that is vast and subtle, yet incompara-
bly direct and revolutionary in its impact (from the “About the
Author” section in [Cohen, 1999]; self-published).
ANDREW COHEN WAS BORN in New York City in 1955.

He spent his formative years—either from ages five to fifteen
(Cohen, 1992), or from age three into his twenties (Tarlo, 1997), de-
pending on whom you choose to believe—undergoing psychoanal-
ysis.
When Cohen was sixteen years old, he experienced a spontane-
ous expansion of consciousness “in all directions simultaneously”
into infinite space, along with a “revelation” concerning the intercon-
nectedness and inseparability of all life.
156
SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE A GOD 157
A few years later, he was initiated into kriya yoga (a variant of

kundalini yoga in general) by a “direct disciple” of Paramahansa Yo-
gananda (i.e., by one who knew the yogi when he was alive). Having
practiced that technique for six months, Cohen was blessed with a
temporary kundalini surge and a vision of blazing white light.
After giving up his musical aspirations in despair of not finding
perfect, lasting spiritual happiness through it (in his version)—or of
not having the right stuff to get to the top as a drummer (in his moth-
er’s version)—he traveled to India, meeting his future wife (Alka)
there. In 1986 in that country, after having experienced several “be-
trayals” at the hands of earlier teachers, he met his guru, Hari Wench
Lal (H. W. L.) Poonja. The latter was presenting himself as an en-
lightened disciple of the widely celebrated sage Ramana Maharshi.
Maharshi himself, however, not only never confirmed anyone else’s
enlightenment but had no official disciples and no recognized lineage.
With or without that spiritual connection, however,
Poonjaji told me several stories of people who had faith in him

and had experienced miraculous and sudden cures from ill-
nesses (Cohen, 1989).
During Cohen’s first meeting with Poonja he fell into a profound

enlightenment experience of “emptiness.” That was confirmed as real
by Poonja, and seems to have duly impressed both Andrew and his
guru:
Poonjaji told me that I had the same look in my eyes as his

Guru Ramana Maharshi did. He said that he had seen these
eyes only three times in his life: in his Guru’s, in his own and
in mine (Cohen, 1992).
As Poonja himself put it:
I knew this would happen—you’re the one I’ve been waiting

for my whole life and now that I’ve met you I can die (Cohen,
2002).
Of course, Poonja did eventually die, but not before using the
same “you’re the one I’ve been waiting for all my life” line several
years later on a female disciple, whom he reportedly sent to America

to effectively “clean up Andrew’s mess.”
That, however, would be getting ahead of our story.
For the time being, both guru and disciple were very much in
love with each other and with the idea of enlightenment. Indeed, as
Poonja (in Cohen, 1992) intimated to Andrew’s mother Luna Tarlo,
who had by then joined them in India:
You don’t know how rare this is. Something like him ... only
happens once in several hundred years.
[Poonja] read a list of the names of all the Buddhas that had
come into this world. When he got to the end of the list he read
out my name and then looked at me and smiled (Cohen, 1992).
Following his enlightenment, and with only a scant two and a

half weeks of training, Poonja sent Cohen out into the world as a
teacher, with great expectations. Andrew himself then reportedly con-
firmed his own feelings, of now having a special purpose in life—and
a fairly messianic one at that—to his mother:
“Believe it or not Poonja and I might be the only two people in

the whole world doing the [enlightenment] work we’re doing,”
Andrew said (Tarlo, 1997).
As another early disciple of Cohen tells it:
Poonjaji has told him he will create a revolution amongst the

young in the West! “I pass my mantle on to you,” Poonjaji had
said (van der Braak, 2003).
If that “mantle-passing” from guru to disciple sounds disturb-

ingly familiar, that is because the same phrase comes up between the
biblical Elijah and Elisha, just before Elijah was taken up to heaven in
a fiery chariot, having given a “double portion” of his own blessings
to Elisha:
He [Elisha] took up also the Mantle of Elijah that fell from

him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan (2 Kings
2:13).
In the contemporary acting-out of that incident, then, Poonja has

placed himself in the position of Elijah—who, in some reincarnation-
based interpretations (e.g., Yogananda, 1946), was also John the Bap-
tist. Cohen, on the other hand, plays the part of Elisha, or Jesus
Christ.
Such a comparison might well have displeased Poonja, however,
given his positively unbridled attitude toward his own spiritual attain-
ment:
“I’m only jealous of one man,” [Poonja] said. “Who was that?”
I asked. “The Buddha,” he replied, “he’s the only one who
surpassed me” (Cohen, 1992).
Of course, being the foremost disciple of such an exalted figure

is bound to do wonders for one’s self-image. Thus, in Andrew’s own
reported, enlightened words (in Tarlo, 1997):
[V]ery few people like me exist in the world. I can destroy a

person’s karma.... If you trust me, I have the power to com-
pletely destroy your past.
Anyone who loves me ... is guaranteed enlightenment.
You know, Luna, sometimes I feel like a god.
Regarding “Luna”: Cohen always referred to his mother by her

first name, even before his “enlightenment.”
At any rate, the god-like Andy C. quickly took his wife as a dis-
ciple, and reportedly pressured his mother (Tarlo, 1997) into the same
—thus exhibiting atrociously poor judgment in both of those relation-
ships. Nevertheless, the latter mother, in particular, was soon to bene-
fit from Cohen’s spiritual largesse, apparently being informed over
afternoon tea—to her own surprise—that she was now enlightened.
Another disciple, Dvora, evidently profited comparably, report-
edly being notified one morning by Andrew that “her enlightenment
was complete” (Tarlo, 1997). Being thus ostensibly fully enlightened,
however, apparently did not absolve loyal disciples such as Dvora of
discipline at the hands of the guru. Indeed, she seems to have discov-
ered that the hard way when bleakly informing Andrew of her par-
ents’ pressures on her to come home, i.e., to leave India and Cohen:
“You’re a hypocrite, a liar, and a prostitute,” Andrew said [to

Dvora] in cool measured cadence and he got up, and went to
his bed and lay back, and turned on the TV (Tarlo, 1997).
Such, allegedly, were Cohen’s applications of “skillful means”

toward the enlightenment of his followers.
It would be getting ahead of our story to disclose that Cohen’s
mother no longer considers herself to be enlightened. Nor does she
anymore regard herself as an “unvirgin” holy mother to the erstwhile
Messiah, Andrew.
The “messiah” epithet is actually not at all out of place here, for
the possibility was apparently actually floated, among Cohen’s fol-
lowers, that he may have been the reincarnation of the Buddha. As
Poonja himself declared: “The twentieth century is lucky to have seen
the Perfect Buddha reborn to live with them to Free [sic] them from
the miserable samsara” (Cohen, 1992). Not to be outdone, disciples
of Cohen reportedly also suggested that Andrew may have been the
reincarnation of Jesus Christ (Tarlo, 1997).
Ironically, the messiah-figure in Monty Python’s Life of Brian
also had the surname Cohen. The contemporary namesake wins in
quantity, however, counting around a thousand disciples—although
only about a hundred live in his sangha—to the fictional Brian’s mere
dozens.
Of course, as with guru-figures in general, we should hardly be
surprised to find it claimed that “respect was Andrew’s obsession.”
As he himself reportedly put it:
I am no longer an ordinary man leading an ordinary life. And

from now on, no one will spend time with me unless they treat
me with respect (in Tarlo, 1997).
As to the loyalty which the Antidangerfield guru evidently ex-

pected from his followers, then, Andre van der Braak (2003) gives the
unsettling example of a committed student reportedly needing to be
willing “rather to be burned alive than betray Andrew.”
Interestingly, Poonja once stated his view of the guru-disciple re-

lationship to Andrew as, “Do not be attached to the teacher” (in
Cohen, 1989). Cohen’s own perspective in recent years, however, has
apparently grown to encompass exactly the polar opposite of that po-
sition:
[O]ne cannot be too dependent upon a truly enlightened per-

son, Cohen said, exasperated. “The more attached you get to a
person like that, the more free, literally, you become.” Cohen
derided the importance that people in general, and Westerners
in particular, give to independence....
Cohen’s belief in his own specialness kept coming to the
fore. Those who are enlightened, he said, by definition can do
no wrong. They “are no longer acting out of ignorance, in
ways that are causing suffering to other people” (Horgan,
2003).
That, of course, is the most dangerous belief which any human

being could hold. Yet, it is the normal attitude of any loyal disciple
toward his or her “perfect” guru, invariably demanded by the latter, as
we have already explicitly seen with Trungpa, Da, and many sad oth-
ers:
Maharishi [Mahesh Yogi] can do no wrong (Scott, 1978).
[Rajneesh] can’t be wrong (Belfrage, 1981).
***
It is easy to show, via the same contextual comparison method which

we have utilized for previous “crazy wisdom” practitioners, that
Cohen’s reported rude behavior, like Adi Da’s and Trungpa’s, appar-
ently lacks any wise or noble basis.
For example, consider that in 1997 an Amsterdam newspaper
printed a generally complimentary review of a lecture there by Cohen.
The piece ended with the ironic but nevertheless fairly innocent ob-
servation that, although the guru had his students shave their heads,
Cohen’s own hair was well coiffed.
When that article was read to Andrew in English, Cohen report-
edly “shows no response until those last lines. Then he pulls a face”:
“What a bastard, that interviewer. He seemed like such a nice

guy. Call him up Harry! Tell him he’s a jerk.”
When Harry sensibly resists “burning that PR bridge,” Cohen

apparently shoots back:
“He’s an incompetent journalist. Then just tell him he’s no

good at his profession” (van der Braak, 2003).
If the journalist in question had been a formal disciple of An-

drew’s, everyone involved would have had no difficulty at all in ra-
tionalizing Cohen’s reported temper as being a “skillful means.” That
is, his rumored outburst would have been meant only to awaken the
scribe from his egoic sleep. That hypothetical situation, however, is
not at all the case. We should therefore not credit Cohen’s reported
response, at such absolutely minimal provocation, as being anything
more than infantile. Further, we must take alleged eruptions such as
that as forming the “baseline” for the man’s behavior, against which
all other potentially “skillful means” are to be judged.
Further contemplate Andrew’s alleged explosion when he had
been late for a group restaurant dinner in Amsterdam—running “on
his own time,” even while reportedly severely castigating disciples if
they were ever tardy. His followers, having been told by one of his
assistants that it was okay for them to begin eating without him, ap-
parently made the “fatal mistake” of doing exactly that. Then, when
Cohen finally did show up, he was reportedly “furious about this lack
of respect” (van der Braak, 2003; italics added).
Days later, Cohen was allegedly still voicing his anger about that
incident and his felt disrespect, complaining that the Dutch, as a peo-
ple, were “too informal and casual.” In the same context, in his re-
ported view, the Germans were “heavy and morbid,” and the English
“emotionally reserved and cut off” (van der Braak, 2003).
Of course, Andrew and his apologists would again undoubtedly
wish to twist his reported ranting at the “disrespect” of that incident
into a “skillful means” on his part, ostensibly to get them to drop their
egoic reactions and simply live in “ego-less, choiceless awareness.”
But consider: What concern should it ever have been of Cohen’s as to
how the Dutch in general may or may not behave? If he himself were
living in such choiceless awareness—and thus not “recoiling from
relationships,” etc.—how could such a characteristic, whether or not

it is accurate beyond the insensitive stereotyping, among people who
are not his disciples, possibly bother him in the least? If one takes the
attitude, “the greater the offense, the bigger the ego,” where does that
leave Andy, for reportedly being so very easily offended?
Further, could such an apparent craving for bowing respect ever
derive from anything other than deep, egoic insecurity?
My own considered opinion is that when the baseline of such
“noise” is subtracted from Cohen’s reported behaviors in the guru-
disciple context, there is nothing at all left to be regarded as a “skillful
means” of awakening others in that.
***
Cohen has founded numerous spiritual communities or sanghas in

North America. Initially, he had his disciples rent shared houses in
Amherst, Massachusetts, in 1988. They soon moved the community
to Boston, and later to Marin County, California, in the summer of
1989. Then back to a $2 million “Foxhollow” ashram in the Berk-
shires of Massachusetts in 1997. For the latter privilege, each moving
disciple reportedly paid one thousand dollars for each year that he had
been a disciple of Cohen, to a maximum of five grand.
Andre van der Braak began following Cohen in 1987, living in
the latter’s sangha for eleven years. During that period, he acted at
various times as the head of the community editorial department, spe-
cifically as an editor for both What Is Enlightenment? magazine and
for Cohen’s first book, Enlightenment is a Secret.
He further (2003) expressed his own early, inflated enthusiasm
for Cohen’s enlightenment work within that shifting community, as
follows:
This is an evolutionary experiment; we are the forerunners in

an evolutionary wave that will transform the western spiritual
world!
Life within that “evolutionary” community, however, appears to

have unfolded in a less than heavenly manner. Indeed, the overall in-
culcated attitude reportedly involved a banishing of personal or inde-
pendent life in favor of enforcing Andrew’s rules, and of “living for

the sake of the whole” (van der Braak, 2003).
It is, however, only by making our own mistakes as individuals
that we can learn. If one goes through life simply “making other peo-
ple’s mistakes,” obediently following their instructions and rules re-
gardless of how obviously wrong those may be, the best that one can
hope to learn from that is to appreciate the importance of thinking for
oneself. And that latter realization, as long as it may take for one to
properly appreciate, is just the start of the unfolding of one’s full hu-
man potential, never the end of it.
Toward the close of van der Braak’s own decade-long involve-
ment with Cohen, the enforced sangha discipline reportedly took the
form of six hundred prostrations each morning, done while repeating
a mantra created by the enlightened master: “To know nothing, to
have nothing, to be no one.”
This is the message he wants engraved in our brain (van der

Braak, 2003).
Tarlo (in van der Braak, 2003) further describes Cohen as exhib-
iting an “ever growing paranoia and ferocious will to control.” Under
that alleged mindset, disciplined life in his community is said to have
entailed, at one time or another:
• Followers doing up to a thousand prostrations in a ten-hour

period each day, on the orders of Cohen
• The guru instructing his devotees to shave their heads and
maintain celibate relations to prove their dedication to his
path. At one point, approximately one-fifth of the commu-
nity were shaven celibates
• Disciples willfully destroying $20,000+ cars, at Cohen’s in-
struction and indeed with him present, to demonstrate their
non-attachment and sincerity
• Successful painters renouncing their art, at Andrew’s misled
counsel, for it allegedly being simply “an extension of ego,”
and thus ostensibly an impediment to enlightenment
• Followers throwing their secular books into the Ganges, and

obediently incinerating their life’s writings (with no known
backups), on Cohen’s demand
• Disciples surviving for extended periods on five hours or
less of sleep per night, not by choice but by necessity for
meeting the community schedule of mandatory activities
• Students on meditation retreats not being allowed to have
personal conversations, only being permitted to discuss
Cohen’s summary of his teachings in his “five fundamen-
tals”
• Injuctions by Cohen against his disciples entertaining intel-
lectual pursuits. As Tarlo (1997) put it: “I mentioned to [An-
drew] that I’d glanced at [Wilber’s] Up from Eden and he
told me not to read further in the book because it was intel-
lectually stimulating [sic]”
• Cycles of expulsion and readmission to the community, for
devotees who had fallen out of favor with Cohen. Those
were then given second or third chances to work their way
back up into Andrew’s good graces
• And, as is the case with every spiritual community, anyone
who leaves “is viewed with scorn and contempt. He hadn’t
the courage to face himself” (van der Braak, 2003)
After all that, Luna Tarlo (1997) summarized her own opinions
regarding Cohen’s guruship:
It just seems to me that [Andrew] is as duped by his own

propaganda as were all those other brother-gurus in the mar-
ketplace who promised deliverance from suffering—from Hit-
ler to David Koresh.
Note that that wholly negative, Hitler-comparing evaluation

comes from Cohen’s own Jewish mother and former disciple. Tarlo
still loves him “as her son,” but will rightly have nothing further to do
with the activities which stem from him feeling “like a god.”
***
As we have hinted at above, Ken Wilber’s writings have traditionally

generated a uniquely high level of interest within the inner circle of
Cohen’s community. Andre van der Braak had actually done his psy-
chology thesis on Wilber, piquing Cohen’s curiosity with his associ-
ated bookshelves full of kw’s ponderous works, and resulting in their
reported collective brainstorming as to how to get Wilber in as a stu-
dent of Cohen’s.
We speculate about why he hasn’t been willing to meet with

Andrew. Is he afraid of ego death? (van der Braak, 2003; ital-
ics added).
Their persistent courting evidently paid off, however, for in Wil-

ber’s foreword to Cohen’s (2002) Living Enlightenment we read:
[Rude Boys] live as Compassion—real compassion, not idiot

compassion—and real compassion uses a sword more often
than a sweet. They deeply offend the ego (and the greater the
offense, the bigger the ego)....
Andrew Cohen is a Rude Boy. He is not here to offer
comfort; he is here to tear you into approximately a thousand
pieces ... so that Infinity can reassemble you....
Every deeply enlightened teacher I have known has been
a Rude Boy or Nasty Girl. The original Rude Boys were, of
course, the great Zen masters, who, when faced with yet an-
other ego claiming to want Enlightenment, would get a huge
stick and whack the aspirant right between the eyes.... Rude
Boys are on your case in the worst way, they breathe fire, eat
hot coals, will roast your ass in a screaming second and fry
your ego before you knew what hit it....
I have often heard it said that Andrew is difficult, offend-
ing, edgy, and I think, “Thank God.” In fact, virtually every
criticism I have ever heard of Andrew is a variation on, “He’s
very rude, don’t you think?”
Of course, Tarlo’s (1997) exposé of Cohen had been published

nearly half a decade before Wilber’s penning of that odd mixture of
images. Had kw properly informed himself of that, he would most
certainly have heard criticisms of Cohen which could in no way be
dismissed as arising merely from overly sensitive egos complaining
about not being sufficiently coddled. (Needless to say, Cohen disputes

the accuracy of the depiction of life in his communities given by his
own mother, and presumably does not agree with van der Braak’s
sketching of it, either. The WHAT enlightenment??! website, though,
offers many additional, generally equally uncomplimentary stories
from other former disciples.)
If being a “Rude Boy” simply means speaking unpleasant truths,
then yes, “every deeply enlightened teacher” has probably done that.
Such beneficial behavior, however, is vastly different from what
Trungpa, Adi Da and Cohen (unlike, say, Aurobindo and Ramana
Maharshi) have allegedly indulged in.
Further, just because a “master” is a “Rude Boy” toward others
obviously does not mean that his own “breakthrough” into claimed
radical enlightenment was the product of having previously been
treated in that way himself! Indeed, neither Adi Da nor Cohen nor
Trungpa have recorded their own enlightenments as arising from be-
ing on the receiving end of such behavior. That fact is radically sig-
nificant, as is the fact that neither Da nor Cohen, explicitly, have
managed to produce even one disciple as “enlightened” as they them-
selves claim to be, in spite of their “rude” behaviors.
It does have to be considered at this point that there are no

practitioners in the advanced and ultimate stages (Da, in [Elias,
2000a]).
None of Cohen’s students have become liberated (Horgan,

2003).
Beyond that, the whole disturbingly violent “whack between the

eyes” thing is, as we have seen, a rather absurdly romanticized view
of Zen. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder: Has Wilber himself ever
received such a beneficial, hard blow between the eyes with a huge
stick, or literally had the crap beaten out of him? Was that what
brought on any of his early, “verified” satoris, or his nondual One
Taste realization? If not, he has no business recommending such
treatment to others. (We will turn our attention, in the next chapter, to
this and many other disturbing inconsistencies in Wilber’s philosophy
and character.)
Notwithstanding all of those concerns, other revered spiritual

figures have been equally impressed by Cohen, on the mere basis of
his writings, as has the easily excitable Wilber. Indeed, as Penor Rin-
poche, head of the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism since 1991,
put it (in Cohen, 2000):
I have an appreciation for Andrew Cohen’s works on the quest

of the spiritual path, which explore the essence of religious
faith. His work is very beneficial for anyone curious about En-
lightenment as the ultimate goal. I have confidence that Em-
bracing Heaven & Earth will bring great benefit to readers and
seekers in their spiritual practice.
Rinpoche’s endorsement there, too, came well after the 1997

publication of Tarlo’s exposé of Cohen. He and Wilber are hardly
alone in that regard, however, in having failed to do the relevant re-
search before offering a confident opinion. Indeed, others in the same
embarrassing situation include the head of the Sivananda ashram,
who averred that Cohen “shines like a light in darkness.” Also, the
president of Kripalu, the science fiction writer Amit Goswami, Lama
Surya Das, and Swami Chetanananda of the Nityananda Institute.
(For the latter, see LNI [2003] and Read [2001].) All of those indi-
viduals enthusiastically endorsed Cohen (2000), as did the “God-
realized” John W. White (cf. 1997), who there commended Cohen as
being a “RAMBO-dhisattva,” or spiritual peace-warrior.
Presumably, the titles “Rocky of Ages”—with his trusty, admir-
ing sidekick, the “Bullwinkle of consciousness studies”—and “Cohen
the Barbarian” were already taken.
Body Shop founder Anita Roddick, too, has in recent years fallen
for Andrew’s brand of salvation—inconsistent as that discount brand
may be:
“I don’t like unconditional love,” [Andrew] says. “Love al-

ways has to be earned” (van der Braak, 2003).
Of course, such radically conditioned love would be the com-

plete opposite of what Dr. Elizabeth Debold (in Cohen, 2000) credits
Andrew with expressing. For there, she lauds exactly “his demand
that we realize and live a love that has no bounds.”
A love with “no bounds” would obviously be unconditional and

not needing to be “earned,” after all, would it not?
The “real compassion” of which Wilber speaks with such cer-
tainty then allegedly manifests through Cohen in this manner:
I don’t give a damn about your personal evolution anymore. I

just want to be able to use you for my community (in van der
Braak, 2003).
Of course, not everyone reacts positively to such “compassion-

ate, Rude Boy” discipline. Indeed, the reported experiences of one
particularly unfortunate disciple of Cohen, who lived in a “state of
chronic panic” and allegedly ultimately ended up “under a psychia-
trist’s care, thoroughly sedated” (Tarlo, 1997), would reveal as much.
As Pavlov himself again discovered in having animals try to dis-
tinguish between flattened circles and fairly round ellipses, initially
excitable dogs could easily feel constant panic, in not knowing how to
please their “master,” when pleasing the master, however little he
may have merited that respect, is all that matters. Obviously then,
when spiritual disciples are driven to such literal panic and madness,
that breakdown has nothing whatsoever to do with their own alleged
“psychological immaturity.” Nor does it have anything to do with the
phenomenological nonsense of supposedly being “unable to face up
to the fact that naked Reality, which reveals itself when our concep-
tual grids are removed, is an unimaginable richness of actualities and
possibilities” (Feuerstein, 1992).
And what was Cohen’s reported “non-idiot compassion”-based
response to all of that?
“Enlightnment and madness are very close.” Then he laughed,

and added, spookily, “It could happen to any one of you”
(Tarlo, 1997).
***
Aside from attempting to spread his teachings through his books and
personal counsel within his spiritual community, in 1992 Cohen
founded What Is Enlightenment? magazine. That bi-annual (now
quarterly) periodical has been praised by Wilber (in Cohen, 2002) as
follows:
Andrew’s magazine ... is the only [one] I know that is ... ask-
ing the hard questions, slaughtering [needlessly violent macho
imagery, again] the sacred cows, and dealing with the Truth no
matter what the consequences.
The avant-garde biologist Rupert Sheldrake likewise opines (in

Cohen, 2005):
What Is Enlightenment? magazine is a unique forum for in-

quiry that goes deeper and reaches further than any other spiri-
tual magazine I know.
Other former residents of Cohen’s spiritual community, how-

ever, have voiced far less complimentary opinions of that same publi-
cation, calling it “a hodge-podge of opinions that go nowhere. A foray
into mental masturbation.”
At a back-issue price of $9 U.S. per glossy, full-color copy,
however, there are cheaper ways of mentally ... um....
Anyway, Cohen’s own books are themselves no examples of fine
literature, metaphysical or otherwise, being abundantly padded with
blank pages and unnecessarily large—generally nearly double spaced
—leading between lines of text. For example, of the seventy-two total
pages, including front and back matter, in his self-serving (1999)
tract, In Defense of the Guru Principle, twenty-six are blank, and four
others contain only section/chapter headings. Eight more are taken up
with the foreword and preface, giving the book an unbelievable
“Don’t Need To Read This” rating of 38/72 = 53%, even independent
of its nearly double-spaced content.
Cohen’s equally widely spaced Living Enlightenment—endorsed
by Barbara Marx-Hubbard—fares marginally better, with a DNTRT
of around 30%. A rating of 5% would be more typical for an average
book. Beyond both of those unimpressive texts, however, the gargan-
tuan amount of white space in Cohen’s Enlightenment is a Secret
must be seen to be believed. Was there an ink shortage? Or a paper
surplus?
When you read and research a lot, you notice things like that.
When you pay full price for such vacuous creative artistry and envi-
ronmental unconsciousness, you notice it even more.
Centering a teaching around “emptiness” is one thing. But bla-

tantly padding books with thick, unruled, empty sheets of paper—
useful neither for note-taking nor for toiletry—is taking it to an ex-
treme. Nor would a real publisher take that route to such a painfully
obvious, tree-wasting degree—which Roddick, of all people, should
have noted and objected to at first glance.
Of course, Wilber (2000a; italics added), as usual, sees things
differently:
[U]ntil the ecologists understand that the ozone hole, pollution,

and toxic wastes are all completely part of the Original Self,
they will never gain enlightened awareness, which alone knows
how to proceed with these pressing problems.
Anyone with the least comprehension of those issues, however,

can easily see that the first step in “knowing how to proceed” is sim-
ply to “stop the bleeding.” If Cohen’s “enlightened awareness” only
makes the bleeding worse, that is to be expected. For, it has never
been the Self-realized “meditation masters” of this world who have
stood at the front line of any battles, environmental or otherwise.
Rather, it has always been the looked-down-upon and “less spiritually
advanced” activists who have taken the risks and effected those
changes. (Rare exception: Zen roshi Robert Aitken, whose efforts
have at times “depart[ed] radically from the Japanese Zen tradition in
which opposition to political authority has been negligible and civil
disobedience unknown” [Tworkov, 1994]. In his demonstrations
against nuclear testing and sexual inequality, however, he has surely
stood side-by-side with many others for whom Zen and the like were
little more than distant curiosities. Yet, they were every bit as able to
see “how to proceed” as he was. Still, both Aitken and Cohen are ar-
guably doing better than the enlightened Wilber himself, if one con-
siders his black leather furniture [Horgan, 2003a] and Thanksgiving
turkey dinners [Wilber, 2000a] from an animal rights perspective.
One need not even agree with that often-judgmental alternative view
in order to see that Wilber is in absolutely no position to lecture
ecologists or the like on how to create a better world by becoming
“more like him.”)
Cohen’s books themselves are all published by Moksha Press,
which is again simply the self-publishing vehicle for his own teach-
ings. In any such situation, one would confidently expect not merely
the text but the promotional materials for any publication to be at
least vetted, if not actually written, by the author-publisher himself.
Thus, the inflated “About the Author” description of Cohen’s great-
ness which opened this chapter could not reasonably have been put
into print without his own full approval.
***
Cohen eventually split from his own guru, Poonja, upon learning of
various indiscretions in the master’s conduct, including his having
reportedly fathered a child via a blond, Belgian disciple. He explained
that communication breakdown simply in terms of himself having
“surpassed [his] own Teacher” (Cohen, 1992).
Of course, all humility aside, Poonja obviously considered him-
self to have accomplished the same “surpassing the Teacher” feat. For
he regarded only the Buddha as being above him, in spite of claiming
Ramana Maharshi as his own guru and teaching lineage. That is,
Poonja could not have been “second” to the Buddha if he had not, in
his own mind, surpassed his teacher, Maharshi.
If Andrew has now surpassed Poonja, that presumably places
him too above Maharshi, and second in line to the Buddha himself.
Freely casting aside any remaining sense of perspective, then, in
experiencing unexpected resistance to his humble “revolution,”
Cohen (1992) wrote that it was only the “hypocrisy and self-decep-
tion” of others in the face of his “truth” that caused them to be afraid
of him.
More recently, following the publication of Tarlo’s exposé of her
claimed experiences in Cohen’s spiritual community, significant con-
cerns were publicly raised about the health of that environment. In
response, Andrew (1999) gave his explanation as to the origin of the
controversies then swirling around him, as being the product only of
his own uncompromising integrity.
Unfortunately, integrity enforced from within the context of an
allegedly “fiercely controlling” perspective, coupled with absolute
authority in that same position, is still a chilling concept, bound to
result in disaster. “Being true to their ideals” in such a context is, in-
deed, probably something which the leaders of any totalitarian regime
could claim just as validly.
Sociologist Hannah Arendt, who covered [Nazi] Adolf Eich-

mann’s trial, made the telling statement: “The sad and very un-
comfortable truth of the matter was that it was not his fanati-
cism but his very conscience that prompted [him] to adopt his
uncompromising attitude.” Eichmann had said himself that he
would have sent his own father to the gas chamber if ordered
to (Winn, 2000; italics added).
***
It was not so long ago that Cohen was reportedly teaching that “there
are no accidents” (in Tarlo, 1997). Conversely, he was (2000) empha-
sizing the need for all individuals to “take responsibility for their en-
tire karmic predicament”:
The reason that The Law of Volitionality [the second of the

“five tenets” of Cohen’s formalized path] is such a challenging
teaching is that we live in a world where most of us are con-
vinced that we couldn’t possibly be responsible for everything
that we do. And the reason that we believe we couldn’t possi-
bly be responsible for everything that we do is simply because
we are convinced that we are victims....
[T]hose who ... want to be free more than anything else ...
are willing to whole-heartedly take responsibility for absolute-
ly everything that they do [italics added].
Only slightly more recently, however:
Cohen derided the notion—promulgated by New Agers and

traditional believers alike—that everything that happens to us
has been divinely ordained or at the very least happens for a
reason. “The narcissism in that kind of thinking is so blatant, I
mean, it’s almost laughable.”
Pain and suffering often occur in a random fashion,
Cohen assured me. He and his Indian-born wife, Alka, were
crossing a street in New York City a few years earlier [i.e., in
1994] when they were hit by a car and almost killed. “I was
going, ‘Why did this happen?’ And I realized that it didn’t
happen for any particular reason. It just happened” (Horgan,
2003).
As far as being “almost killed,” however, Cohen merely suffered

a broken right arm and injuries to his right calf in that accident; his
wife sustained a concussion and a fractured jaw. All in all, those are
fairly minor wounds, considering the context, i.e., one could just as
well feel lucky for having incurred no spinal or internal organ dam-
age. Indeed, a different person might actually manage to turn the
same incident into a proof that “God was watching over them.” For,
considering that they “could easily have been killed,” isn’t it “a mira-
cle” that they survived with such minor injuries?
Independent of that, the responsibilities shirked by Cohen in his
accident—i.e., in him not “taking responsibility for absolutely every-
thing he has done”—boil down to him simply not watching where he
was going. The taxi, after all, did not ride up onto the sidewalk;
rather, Andrew and his wife stepped straight into its path, albeit at a
red light. But did we not all learn, well before age ten, to look both
ways, even just in peripheral vision, before crossing the street?
Contrast the abdication of responsibility in his own implicit vic-
tim-hood, further, with Cohen’s reported attitude toward the supposed
responsibilities of others under much harsher circumstances:
For a self-professed bodhisattva, [Cohen] was awfully con-

temptuous of human frailty. He bragged to me about how he
had scolded a schizophrenic student for blaming his problems
on his mental illness instead of taking responsibility for him-
self (Horgan, 2003; italics added).
That same contempt is, of course, part of the same “Rude Boy”
attitude which Wilber so inexcusably celebrates in Cohen.
This, then, is Cohen’s apparent worldview: His own stepping
into the path of an oncoming vehicle has no cause, and therefore no
responsibility, truly making him a “victim.” But severe mental illness
afflicting others is to be overcome by an acceptance of responsibility
from which he himself explicitly shrinks.
Further, since Cohen gives no examples of good things happen-
ing equally “without a reason,” one might assume that only bad
things are thus spiritually acausal. Indeed, finding one’s “soul mate”
or having a book on the New York Times best-seller list—Cohen is in
no danger of either—would both presumably still occur “for a rea-
son.” That is, they would happen perhaps for one’s own spiritual evo-
lution, or for the sake of the dreamed-of “revolution” in one’s grandi-

ose life-mission.
And to such gibbering “Buddhas” as this, one should then “sur-
render completely,” for one’s own highest benefit?
Cohen describes enlightenment as a form of not-knowing. And

yet his guruhood, his entire life, revolves around his belief in
—his knowledge of—his own unsurpassed perfection. To bor-
row a phrase, Cohen is a super-egomanic. His casual contempt
for us ordinary, egotistical humans is frightening, as is his be-
lief that, as an enlightened being who has transcended good
and evil, he can do no harm. Cohen may not be a monster, as
his mother claims, but he has the capacity to become one
(Horgan, 2003; italics added).
All potential monstrosities aside, however, even Cohen would

surely agree, after his own “accidents” and many “persecutions”—not
to mention having his own Jewish mother compare him to Hitler—
that “sometimes you feel like a god ... sometimes you don’t.”
CHAPTER XXI
NORMAN EINSTEIN
(KEN WILBER)
To be thought enlightened, one must appear not only certain

that one is, but certain about most everything else, too (Kramer
and Alstad, 1993).
KEN WILBER IS THE “LONG-SOUGHT EINSTEIN of consciousness re-

search,” having been generously regarded as such since the late
1970s.
Ken Wilber is “a genius of our times.”
Ken Wilber is “the foremost theoretician in transpersonal [and
integral] psychology.”
Ken Wilber is “the world’s most intriguing and foremost phi-
losopher.” To wit:
The twenty-first century literally has three choices: Aristotle,

Nietzsche, or Ken Wilber (Jack Crittenden, in [Wilber, 2000]).
Michael Murphy maintains that, along with Aurobindo’s Life

Divine, Heidegger’s Being and Time, and Whitehead’s Process
and Reality, Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is “one of the
four great books of this [twentieth] century” (Integral, 2004).
Ken Wilber is “an American bodhisattva pandit.”
176
NORMAN EINSTEIN 177
Ken Wilber is “one of the most important pioneers in the field of

consciousness in this century.”
Ken Wilber is “a source of inspiration and insight to all of us.”
Ken Wilber is “the most comprehensive philosophical thinker of
our times.”
Ken Wilber is “the most cogent and penetrating voice in the re-
cent emergence of a uniquely American wisdom.”
Ken Wilber is “the most influential integral thinker in the world
today.”
One need not search far at all to find glowing endorsements of

the work which the esteemed Mr. Ken Wilber has done over the past
quarter of a century in consciousness studies. Indeed, the latter three
of the above recommendations can be found, as of this writing, on the
home page of Wilber’s own website (http://wilber.shambhala.com).
The first two, further, come from one of his own (1991) books, via his
late wife’s diaries. Two others are only a click away from his home
web page, nestled in an adoration-filled “update” on the value of his
work, written by one of his long-time students.
Wilber began writing his first book at age twenty-three, having
dropped out of postgraduate biochemistry studies in 1973 to pursue
that activity. The Spectrum of Consciousness was rejected by twenty
publishers over a three-year period (Schwartz, 1996) before finally
being accepted by the Theosophical (Society’s) Publishing House.
Since then, Wilber has written over a dozen books. He has also acted
(past tense) as an editor for both ReVision magazine and the New Sci-
ence Library imprint of Random House, and had his Collected Works
published by Shambhala.
Now in his mid-fifties and residing in Boulder, Wilber has re-
cently founded and assumed the presidency of the Integral Institute
(www.integralinstitute.org), with its affiliated Integral Naked forum.
Guests of the latter have included spiritual luminaries such as Andrew
Cohen, Deepak Chopra, Carolyn Myss, Michael Crichton—see
Mooney (2005) for Mr. Jurassic Park’s environmental unconscious-
ness—and the Smashing Pumpkins’ Billy Corgan. Since 1995, Wil-
ber’s integral “Four Quadrant” model of reality has been put to use by
psychological, business and political leaders in America and beyond.
(Those four quadrants embrace the subjective, objective, intersubjec-
tive [i.e., cultural] and interobjective [i.e., social] lives of all relative
wholes or “holons”—a term coined by Arthur Koestler—in the cos-

mos.)
While Wilber’s isn’t the [only] integral model, his work must
certainly be taken into account in any discussion of anything
“integral.” To not do so is negligent and tantamount to discuss-
ing relativity theory without Einstein, existentialism without
Nietzsche or the Captain without Tennille (Berge, 2004).
***
As with Wilber’s academic accolades, one need not search far at all to
find indications of his high spiritual attainment. Indeed, already by
the mid-’80s, Wilber (1991) could lay claim to “fifteen years of medi-
tation, during which I had had several unmistakable ‘kensho’ [i.e.,
‘glimpse of enlightenment’] experiences, fully confirmed by my
teachers.”
Of course, nearly every “enlightened” individual we have seen
thus far has made fully comparable claims. That is, it is rare to find a
respected spiritual figure who has not received confirmation, from his
own teachers or gurus, of his minor and major enlightenment experi-
ences. Thus, “Kensho Wilber” is part of a large class, not a small one,
in that regard. Indeed, Muktananda confirmed Adi Da’s first adult
experience of nirbikalpa samadhi in 1969 ... not so long after Da’s
early-’60s “astral moon cannibal slave” visions. (Da himself reaf-
firmed the validity of those insights in the mid-’90s.) Such endorse-
ments, then, mean absolutely nothing, in terms of evaluating whether
any given individual is enlightened or simply wildly deluded.
Nevertheless, Wilber’s kensho experiences later blossomed into
the nondual “One Taste” state:
I was conscious for eleven days and nights, even as the body
and mind went through waking, dreaming, and sleeping: I was
unmoved in the midst of changes; there was no I to be moved;
there was only unwavering empty consciousness, the luminous
mirror-mind, the witness that was one with everything wit-
nessed. I simply reverted to what I am, and it has been so,
more or less, ever since (Wilber, 2000a).
NORMAN EINSTEIN 179
Not even the Dalai Lama can sustain nondual awareness

through deep sleep, Wilber informed me, as he can (Horgan,
2003a).
By any reasonable logic, that nondual realization would place

Wilber among the mere thousand (or however many) “truly great Zen
masters” throughout history, both in his own mind and objectively.
That is so even should there be states of realization beyond the One
Taste experience, i.e., potentially making it not “the highest” possible
understanding.
“All good things must come to an end,” however—including,
apparently, the eternal, “always-already” One Taste realization:
After attaining this [One Taste] ability in 1995, Wilber sus-

tained it until about a year ago, when a nasty staph infection
left him bedridden for six months. “I lost a great deal of access
to it,” he said, but “it’s slowly coming back” (Horgan, 2003a).
***
Wilber has made his name in the world as an academic or pandit, not
as a guru-figure with disciples. We might begin, then, by examining
the dynamics present in the relation of the work of Wilber and his
admirers to the rest of their profession.
Fortunately, we have access to a very significant “test case” in
that regard—that of Wilber versus de Quincey.
Dr. Christian de Quincey (www.deepspirit.com) is a professor of
philosophy at John F. Kennedy University in California. He is also
the managing editor of the IONS Review, published by the Institute of
Noetic Sciences. (IONS was in turn founded by astronaut Edgar
Mitchell, fan of Muktananda.) In late 2000, he published an unsolic-
ited critique of Wilber’s integral philosophy and emotional character
in the peer-reviewed Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS).
Wilber (2001) responded with over forty single-spaced pages of
attempted demonstrations as to how de Quincey had misrepresented
his work and his character.
De Quincey (2001) volleyed with a twenty-eight page “refutation
of the refutation.”
One of Wilber’s students, Sean Hargens (2001)—also a member

of the Integral Institute—then replied with fifty-plus pages of text to
“refute the refutation of the refutation.” In it, he simultaneously and
reasonably asserted de Quincey’s tendencies toward passive-aggres-
sive behavior (in his writings), and reliance on pop psychology in his
character analysis of Wilber’s “nasty tone.”
And there the matter has rested.
Until now.
It is not my purpose here to attempt to evaluate those authors’ re-
spective criticisms of one another. Life is too short for that. Rather, I
would simply like to note several allegations which de Quincey has
made regarding the “behind the scenes” aspects of the relevant proc-
esses. Those may then give one pause when considering the overall
health of the consciousness studies field. In particular, they may cast
some doubt on the aspects of that field which closely surround Wilber
and his followers, shaping as that proximity does the allowed discus-
sions around them.
In commenting on how Wilber may have obtained pre-publica-
tion knowledge of the detailed contents of his original submitted pa-
per, de Quincey (2001) has suggested:
[Wilber’s] friend Keith Thompson, evidently, had passed along

a series of private and confidential email exchanges between
Thompson and me. I had included Thompson in the group of
prepublication reviewers, and had lengthy online conversations
with him—particularly about I-I [i.e., intersubjectivity]. How-
ever, I explicitly prefaced our exchanges with a request that the
contents of our conversations be kept confidential, and should
not be shared. Thompson agreed, and said he would honor my
request.
Not only did he “approach” Wilber and “warn” him of
“severe distortions,” Thompson used the content of my emails
to write a critique of my Wilber critique, which he sent off to
JCS, suggesting that either his paper be published as a Wilber
review instead of mine, or perhaps alongside mine. Not sur-
prisingly, the JCS editor saw right through the ruse. Thompson
took this underhand action without informing me, clearly
breaching a confidential agreement between us. Very unpro-
fessional. A clear case of “Wilber police” mentality. (Thomp-
son, and his friend and Wilber acolyte Sean Hargens, later
NORMAN EINSTEIN 181
tried a similar tactic to suppress publication of another article

on Wilber I’d written for IONS Review!)
Any devoted disciple would, of course, have behaved in the

same way, in defending his guru-figure’s “honor.” That is, dissenting
opinions are never allowed, and an (alleged) broken promise is a
small price to pay for preserving the sage’s public image.
Given all of the above, one further cannot help but wonder: Did
Wilber himself know about those alleged attempts at suppression?
Recall: According to de Quincey, their mutual friend Keith
Thompson was in contact with both of them after allegedly breaking
his promise of confidentiality to de Quincey. He was also the same
individual who reportedly suggested to JCS that they publish his
analysis of Wilber’s work, rather than de Quincey’s review. Would
Thompson have gone forward with that, without bouncing the idea off
Wilber first?
If Wilber did know about Thompson’s alleged plans, his accep-
tance of that way of doing things, even if that acceptance meant sim-
ply doing nothing to stop Thompson, would be absolutely chilling.
The real Einstein, for one, would never have stooped to such poor
behavior.
Ironically, Wilber (2000a) had earlier voiced his own attitude
toward the need for a free exchange of ideas within the conscious-
ness-studies marketplace and elsewhere. That was given in terms of
the importance of passionately communicating your vision, Kierke-
gaard-like, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, that it might
be heard and adjudicated by a reluctant world.
One wonders, though: Would Wilber and Keith Thompson allow
de Quincey equally valid passion in speaking his own vision, without
(Thompson allegedly) covertly attempting to stop the publication of
the latter’s disagreeable ideas?
Regardless, contrary to Wilber’s impassioned but misled plea,
being right does matter. For, being wrong only makes it more difficult
for correct ideas to be heard above the prevailing cacophony. Every-
one who has ever done fundamental, thrillingly original work in any
field—e.g., Einstein, Bohm, Benoit Mandelbrot (via fractals), etc.—
has discovered that the hard way. For, the established misunderstand-
ings place literally decades of resistance into the path of the accep-
tance of right ideas. That Wilber has encountered far less “wailing
and gnashing” of scholarly teeth speaks much more to the relatively

conservative, synthetic and frequently derivative nature of his own
(esp. early) ideas than to anything else.
***
Notwithstanding his reputation as a brilliant academic, Wilber has

grossly misrepresented basic, high-school-level concepts in evolu-
tionary theory, in Chapter One of his (1996) A Brief History of Every-
thing. Those misunderstandings have been analyzed devastatingly by
David Lane (1996). The most damaging issues uncovered there relate
to Wilber’s expressed reluctance to believe that “half a wing” is better
than none. In kw’s own words:
Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from fore-
legs. It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a func-
tional wing from a leg—a half-wing is no good as a leg and no
good as a wing—you can’t run and you can’t fly. It has no
adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing
you are dinner.
Richard Dawkins (1986), however, has elucidated the long-

established facts of biology, regarding such “half-wings” and the like:
There are animals alive today that beautifully illustrate every

stage in the continuum. There are frogs that glide with big
webs between their toes, tree-snakes with flattened bodies that
catch the air, lizards with flaps along their bodies; and several
different kinds of mammals that glide with membranes
stretched between their limbs, showing us the kind of way bats
must have got their start. Contrary to the creationist literature,
not only are animals with “half a wing” common [i.e., they are
not automatically “dinner”], so are animals with a quarter of a
wing, three quarters of a wing, and so on.
Indeed, Darwin himself, in his (1962) Origin of Species—first

published in 1859—recorded as much:
Look at the family of squirrels; here we have the finest grada-

tion from animals with their tails only slightly flattened, and
NORMAN EINSTEIN 183
from others ... with the posterior part of their bodies rather
wide and with the skin on their flanks rather full, to the so-
called flying squirrels.... We cannot doubt that each structure is
of use [i.e., has adaptive value] to each kind of squirrel in its
own country.
Nor does that exhaust the examples, even just from Darwin’s
own long-extant (1962) catalog:
If about a dozen genera of birds were to become extinct or

were unknown, who would have ventured to surmise that birds
might have existed which used their wings solely as flappers,
like the logger-headed duck (Micropterus of Eyton); as fins in
the water and as front-legs on the land, like the penguin; as
sails, like the ostrich; and functionally for no purpose, like the
Apteryx? Yet the structure of each of these birds is good for it,
under the conditions of life to which it is exposed....
Completely contrary to Wilber’s deficient understanding, then,

although “half a wit” may not be better than none, half a wing cer-
tainly is. Even penguins and ostriches know as much.
From being completely wrong about that elementary idea,
Wilber goes on to confidently assert that “absolutely nobody” be-
lieves the “standard, glib, neo-Darwinian explanation” of chance mu-
tation and natural selection anymore. In reprint editions (e.g., 2000c),
that statement has been modified to read that “very few theorists” be-
lieve this anymore. Even being thus watered down, however, it still
has no point of contact with reality:
[Wilber’s claim] is complete rubbish. Almost everybody who

knows anything about biology does still believe this! (Carroll,
2003).
Dr. Lane—who has taught Darwinian evolution at a university

level—then (1996) pertinently assessed Wilber’s comprehension of
evolutionary biology:
Wilber does not seem to understand that the processes of evo-

lution are blind. He wants to have it “open-eyed” as if natural
selection all of sudden wakes up when it hears that a “wing has
been formed” (better start chugging) or that an “eye has been

completed” (let’s fine tune now). Natural selection does not
“start” when the eye is formed; it works all along without any
conscious intention whatsoever.
Not to sound like a groggy professor, but if Wilber turned
in [his written ideas] to me as a college student trying to ex-
plain the current view of evolutionary theory, I would give him
an “F” and ask to see him in my office.... Wilber has misrepre-
sented the fundamentals of natural selection. Moreover, his
presentation of how evolution is viewed today is so skewed
that Wilber has more in common with creationists than evolu-
tionists, even though he is claiming to present the evolution-
ists’ current view....
What makes Wilber’s remarks on evolution so egregious
is ... that he so maligns and misrepresents the current state of
evolutionary biology, suggesting that he is somehow on top of
what is currently going on in the field.
And Wilber does it by exaggeration, by false statements,
and by rhetoric license.
And how have Wilber and his entourage reacted to such emi-
nently valid points? As Jack Crittenden—who used to co-edit the Re-
Vision journal with Wilber—put it (in Integral, 2004):
Wilber has not been believably criticized for misunderstanding

or misrepresenting any of the fields of knowledge that he in-
cludes [in his “Theory of Everything”].
That statement, of course, has been false since at least 1996,

given Lane’s wonderful work and the fact that Wilber’s “Theory of
Everything” most certainly includes basic evolution. Clay Stinson
(1997), likewise, has given quite “believable” criticisms of kw’s ideas
regarding enlightenment, from a skeptical perspective.
Wilber’s treatment of the late David Bohm, too, leaves much to
be desired. For the details of that unprovoked nastiness and gross mis-
representation, please see this book’s Appendix. To make a long (and
relatively technical) story short: The average high school or freshman
university science student could do better than Wilber has done, in
propagating his arrogant and wholly wrong understandings of even
NORMAN EINSTEIN 185
the most basic ideas in Bohm’s ontological formulation of quantum

theory.
Wilber nastily accuses Bohm of purveying “simplistic and dual-
istic notion[s]” (i.e., “simplistic notions”), “bad physics,” “epicycle”-
like ideas in his conceptualization of an “implicate order” underlying
matter, and of not understanding basic metaphysics. In reality, how-
ever, it is only kw’s own comprehension of the relevant ideas—“of
things beyond your Ken”—which is drastically lacking, not Bohm’s.
Wilber thus demonstrably grossly misrepresents Bohm’s ideas, and
then makes himself look good in tearing those wrong presentations
down, in a classic “straw man” attack. All of that is documented in
the aforementioned Appendix.
Ironically, Wilber himself has suffered much misrepresentation
of his work by others. Indeed, in the midst of his claims that he
greatly values “responsible criticism,” he has opined:
[Often] somebody will give a blistering attack on, say, Wilber-

2, and that attack gets repeated by others who are trying to
nudge me out of the picture (Wilber, 2001; italics added).
Wilber goes on to assert, probably reasonably, that misrepresen-

tation of his work is present in over 80% of the published/posted criti-
cisms of it.
Bohm’s work too, however, involved a chronological develop-
ment of the ideas (or Bohm-1, Bohm-2), etc. When Wilber criticizes
Bohm for his own wrong perceptions in seeing tacked-on “epicycles”
in the latter’s work, then, he is doing very nearly exactly what he
rightly will not accept in argument from his own critics. (Wilber’s
detractors are focusing, in his above claim, on discrediting an older
version of his work which he has since improved upon. He himself,
by comparison, is effectively criticizing Bohm for having made com-
parable improvements in his [Bohm’s] own later work. Those are not
identical positions, but at the very least they show Wilber being intol-
erant of behaviors in others which he gladly accepts from himself.
And indeed, Wilber’s “streams” of development—a later addition to
his integral psychological model—are much closer to being arbitrary
“epicycles,” grafted onto his core, chakra-oriented model after the
fact just to fit new data, than were any of Bohm’s later iterations of
the ontological formulation of quantum theory.)
One might conclude, then, by parity of argument, that in behav-

ing thusly Wilber is trying to nudge Bohm “out of the picture,” even
without being consciously aware of that.
“What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” after all.
Likewise, Wilber (2001) quotes Keith Thompson to the effect
that, given the various “studied” misrepresentations of kw’s work,
none of which involved mere differences of interpretation, it becomes
difficult to not attribute “bad faith” to Wilber’s critics.
By parity of argument, though, one must then allow for equal
“bad faith” on the part of Wilber himself, in his studied misrepresen-
tations of Bohm’s ideas. For none of those, too, can be reduced to
differences of interpretation.
Further, contrary to Wilber’s claim that he “greatly appreciate[s]
responsible criticism,” he has (to my knowledge) totally ignored
Lane’s (1996) devastating deconstruction of the numerous invalid
aspects of his worldview. By contrast, he did find time to respond
(1999) in excruciating detail to Heron’s (1997) more recent critique
of his psychological model, and even later to Hans-Willi Weis
(Wilber, 2003a) and de Quincey (Wilber, 2001). Of course, those re-
sponses were given in contexts where, unlike the situation with Lane,
Wilber could show, at least to his own satisfaction, that the criticisms
of his ideas were not valid.
In defending his own published polemics, Wilber (2000) has re-
cently offered the following misleading explanations:
Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is in some ways an angry book. An-

ger, or perhaps anguish, it’s hard to say which. After three
years immersed in postmodern cultural studies, where the
common tone of discourse is rancorous, mean-spirited, arro-
gant, and aggressive ... after all of that, in anger and anguish, I
wrote SES, and the tone of the book indelibly reflects that.
In many cases it is specific: I often mimicked the tone of
the critic I was criticizing, matching toxic with toxic and snide
with snide. Of course, in doing so I failed to turn the other
cheek. But then, there are times to turn the other cheek, and
there are times not to.
As for the dozen or so theorists that I polemically criticized [in

the first edition of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality], every single one
of them, without exception, had engaged in “condemnatory
NORMAN EINSTEIN 187
rhetoric” of equal or usually much worse dimensions (Wilber,

Bohm, however, although not mentioned in SES—except in that

his (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order is included in the
bibliography, though being mis-dated there as 1973, the year of pub-
lication of one of the papers which later became a chapter in that
book—is an exception to that self-absolution. For, he never stooped
to any such nasty, snide behavior toward Wilber. Thus, the above ra-
tionalizations cannot be validly applied to justifying Wilber’s unduly
vexed comments about Bohm’s consistently honest, humble and in-
sightful work. The most that Bohm was ever “guilty” of was in hav-
ing simply never responded to Wilber’s original (1982), off-base but
relatively well-tempered critique, nothing more provocative.
What are the odds, then, that Wilber’s polemics in other contexts
can be excused as being altogether noble attempts to “spiritually
awaken” others? Or as having arisen only from others having
“started” the mud-slinging? A betting man would not, one supposes,
wager in favor of that.
Conversely, what are the far better odds that he is simply not be-
ing psychologically honest with himself as to the basis of his anger,
cloaking it instead in a veneer of high ideals?
In further defending his behavior toward others, Wilber (1999)
has written:
Even in my most polemical statements, they are always bal-

anced, if you look at all of my writing, by an appreciation of
the positive contributions of those I criticize.
Sadly, that claim, too, is untrue. For, in no way did Wilber pro-
vide any such balance himself in his own (1998 and 2003) attempted
demolitions of Bohm, or anywhere else throughout his life’s work. It
is difficult, after all, to “appreciate” what you have not understood—
as Wilber proves in his original (1982) critique. That is so, particu-
larly if the potential validity of the competing ideas seems to threaten
your own high place in the world. (Wilber may have feebly tried to
“appreciate” Bohm’s work there, but he certainly did not succeed,
instead at best misrepresenting and damning it with very faint praise
relative to its Nobel caliber. If kw’s misunderstandings and misrepre-
sentations of Bohm’s work there and elsewhere, as documented in the

Appendix to this book, were actually valid, Bohm’s ideas would in-
deed threaten his own. Properly understood, however, they do not.)
Wilber (2001) then poses the rhetorical question as to his own
motivations for lashing out at others:
Did they do anything to possibly bring it on themselves, or was

this just a unilateral case of me being rotten to the core?
In the case of his dissing of Bohm, however, it absolutely was

demonstrably a “unilateral case” of Wilber “being rotten to the core.”
For, Bohm never provoked Wilber in any way, except by being right
(and silent, even while alive; and moreso since then) where Wilber
has been embarrassingly, confidently and verbosely wrong.
***
Ken jokes that “being called the foremost theorist in transper-

sonal psychology is like being called the tallest building in
Kansas City” (in Wilber, 1991).
The above could be simply an unconvincing attempt at self-depreca-

tion, or a posing at humility, meant to endear himself to an attractive
woman. (The stacked one to whom it was told actually ended up be-
coming Wilber’s second wife.) Or, it could be a not-too-veiled shot at
the unimpressive work of his “shorter building” peers in transper-
sonal/integral psychology and, more recently, the broader field of
consciousness studies. Probably some of both. Regardless, Wilber
need not have published the above observation, taken from his now-
late wife’s diaries, if he were uncomfortable with how it could be un-
derstood by others. And both of the above interpretations of subtext
are completely predictable and reasonable, for anyone who wishes to
look.
Horgan (2003a) then offers an observation regarding Wilber’s
overall attempts at being liked, with which one cannot easily argue:
His self-deprecating asides [in One Taste, e.g., re: chili]

seemed aimed only at making us admire his modesty.
NORMAN EINSTEIN 189
Indeed, Wilber (1991) has given analyses of himself which could

well be taken as substantiating Horgan’s conclusions:
I think everybody should love me, and when someone doesn’t,

I get nervous. So, as a child, I overcompensated like crazy.
Class president, valedictorian, even captain of the football
team. A frantic dance for acceptance, an attempt to have eve-
rybody love me.
More recently, and with far less of an attempt at false humility

than in his “tallest building in Kansas City” days, Wilber (2003a) has
stated his own attitude toward at least one of his critics, as follows:
I’m sure if [Hans-Willi] Weis would read my work in this area

[of authoritarian control and the like in New Age movements,
on which points Wilber is consistently and wildly wrong, as we
have seen and will sadly see much more of] that he could find
something to hate about it, too, and we are all eagerly looking
forward to his next round of criticism, although I’m sure that I
will be forgiven if I don’t respond, since I might have more
important things to do, like feed my goldfish.
One might take that condescending, lame attempt at “half a wit”

as an implicit admission by Wilber that, in other cases too, when he
has disagreed with but not responded to other authors’ ideas, it was
simply because he had “more important things to do.” That is, they
did not merit a response from him.
How, then, would such a person be likely to react if he were to
suddenly find himself on the receiving end of the same behavior, in
apparently being “ignored until he went away”? Would he perhaps
unconsciously take that behavior as being driven by the same motiva-
tions as he himself has openly admitted to possessing? That is, would
he take it as his colleagues evidently feeling that they had “more im-
portant things to do” than to waste time explaining things to him?
Would he then perhaps feel sufficiently insulted by that as to pe-
riodically lash out at the people who have not “given him his due,” in
the form of a response—any response? (Without receiving an answer,
after all, one feels as though one does not exist in the other person’s
world. As Jean-Paul Sartre put it, “I am seen: therefore I am.”)
Would such a long-term lack of response further perhaps even

leave him feeling confident that he could lash out in unprovoked nas-
tiness, without having to worry about the targets of his insults “hitting
back”? (As Matsakis [1996] observed in a different context, in dis-
cussing “express[ing] your anger in a letter,” never to be mailed: you
“can be as nasty as you want without worrying about it backfiring on
you.”)
Would that not account for his continuing, and wholly unpro-
voked, mistreatment of the late David Bohm?
Interestingly, by Wilber’s own (1991) admission:
[W]hen fear overcomes me, my ordinary lightness of outlook

... degenerates into sarcasm and snideness, a biting bitterness
toward those around me—not because I am snide by nature,
but because I am afraid.
Bohm’s ideas, again, would not have been felt by Wilber to fear-
fully threaten his own place in the world, had he properly understood
them—except in that anyone doing superior work to his own, as
Bohm was performing even while Wilber himself was literally still in
diapers, could have displaced him from his high position as the “em-
peror of consciousness studies.” Having thus grossly misunderstood
even the popularized versions of that brilliance, though—for whatever
combination of subconscious motivations and conscious blundering—
the fearful Wilber has, predictably, treated Bohm (and his memory)
with nothing but unkindness.
Do you imagine, then, that he would behave any more nobly to-
ward his contemporary peers—or lovers—were they to equally
threaten his high place in the integral world by doing far superior
work to his own? Or would he more likely misrepresent their work as
unapologetically and insultingly as he has done of Bohm’s, thereby
“nudging them out of the picture”? And what friends might then stand
by his side to claim, even years after the fact, that he had committed
no such misrepresentation, even when the incontrovertible facts say
exactly the opposite?
Whether one is “captain of the football team” or the “Einstein of
consciousness studies,” the potential loss of that valued status would
bring great fear to the surface. That is so, just as surely as the original
gaining of the position, in high school as in middle or old age, would
NORMAN EINSTEIN 191
be done with at least the subconscious goal of having “everybody

love you.”
***
So, one last time for old time’s sake, I am going to sink into
that horrible vitriol which has marked my entire writing career,
and say that I think all of those folks [who criticize me and my
work] are a bunch of randy toadies and ninny bunnies (Wilber,
2001).
“Randy toadies and ninny bunnies.” Interesting.

“Randy” means sexually aroused or rude; a “toady” is not simply
an endearing term for a toad, but rather refers to a flatterer or syco-
phant; and a “ninny” is a fool or simpleton.
The unintentional comparing of his critics to a “bunch of sexu-
ally aroused sycophants” is interesting, no? As Freudian slips go, at
least.
If Wilber thinks that his detractors see him from such a compli-
mentary perspective, how must he imagine that his fans view him?
***
We all learned and applied the Pythagorean theorem in high school,

in a form very closely resembling the following:
The sum of the squares of the lengths of the sides of a right-

angle triangle is equal to the square of the length of the hy-
potenuse.
Wilber’s own (1996) infamous version of the same principle,

however, instead reads like this:
[T]he sum of the squares of a right triangle is equal to the sum

of the squares of the hypotenuse.
It is clear what Wilber is trying to say here, but only because we

all learned the theorem itself in high school—his actual statement is
meaningless nonsense. (Succeeding editions of the book have, of
course, corrected that text at the start of its Chapter 13.)
Interestingly, the real Einstein worked out his own, innovative

proof—beyond what was given in his self-studied “holy geometry
book”—of exactly the Pythagorean theorem ... at age twelve. Of
course, Albert also managed to be viewed, nearly universally and in
spite of his poorer private behaviors, as a “Jewish saint,” rather than
an “arrogant asshole” (Wilber on himself, in [Horgan, 2003a]). He
further did that without resorting to unconvincing false modesty, and
even while doing unparalleled work as a real genius, as opposed to
being merely the “tallest building” in a prairie town. There is a lesson
in there somewhere. It is, indeed, a lesson in remaining humble and
subject to correction, not simply by one’s awed and overly respectful
peers, but rather in the face of truth.
Significantly, then, Albert’s most frequent answer to questions
put to him in public, on wide-ranging issues which he was, by his
own admission, not sufficiently informed to be certain of his opin-
ions, never entailed an attempt to oracularly bluff his way through in
order to maintain his status as an “Einstein.” Rather, his most frequent
response was simply, and admirably, “I don’t know.”
By contrast, to sustain the feeling that one is a contemporary
genius even amid wholly embarrassingly missteps and misrepresenta-
tions of high-school-level ideas cannot be easy, from any psychologi-
cal perspective.
Despite the “Pythagorean Fiasco,” Wilber is currently in the pro-
cess of developing his own (root) branch of mathematics—an “inte-
gral calculus of indigenous perspectives”:
As far as I can tell, this primordial mathematics appears to be

the root mathematics from which all others are abstracted ab-
stractions [sic] (Wilber, 2003b).
Well, perhaps. More likely not, in my opinion, but perhaps.

In any case, one cannot help but wish the man well in his “new
branch of mathematics” endeavor—in which he is currently all of
“3% done.”
And perhaps, given his history, light a candle.
***
NORMAN EINSTEIN 193
[Wilber] excoriates the suggestion of some New Age authors

that we can overcome any disease or hardship if our faith in
our own minds is strong enough; this claim, Wilber points out,
implies that it is our fault if we cannot cure our own cancer
(Horgan, 2003a).
The belief that we can “overcome any disease or hardship if our faith
in our own minds is strong enough,” or via laying-on-of-hands flows
of healing energy from others, is indeed found throughout the New
Age community—even though no convincing double-blind scientific
evidence of that possibility exists. And certainly, if either of those
abilities are anything more than imagination—or even if psychic phe-
nomena in general exist—there can be few if any limits to what the
human mind can do. Nor is such an attitude so far removed from
Wilber’s own belief system as one might assume from the preceding
quote:
Ken Wilber, as eager as he is to project a scientifically conser-

vative image, once stated, “I’m sure [psychic phenomena] ex-
ist” (Horgan, 2003a).
Or, as Wilber himself elsewhere (1991) put it:
As I lay in bed, I noticed a series of subtle energy currents run-

ning through my body, which felt very much like the so-called
kundalini energy, which, in Eastern religions, is said to be the
energy of spiritual awakening, an energy that lies dormant,
asleep, until aroused by an appropriate person or event.
In describing, to his second wife, his own experiences in a ses-

sion with a laying-on-of-hands healer, he expounded further:
I could definitely feel the energy moving.... I think something

actually does happen with gifted healers (Wilber, 1991).
If such energy flows exist, however, there is no reason why their

intensity could not be increased by relevant practice, to affect oneself
or others in both spiritual awakening and in profound healing, e.g.,
even of cancer. (Conversely, in the same view, a long-term restriction
of such flows within one’s own body could indeed result in illness, as
Brennan [1987] and many others have asserted.) Indeed, that increase
is the very basis of the claimed temporary and partial transmission of
enlightenment via shaktipat and darshan:
Since shakti is the divine energy, and since the guru is con-
cerned with the transference of divine power, the use of that
energy in such a transfer produces an immediate impact. That
is shaktipat—the almost instantaneous transfer of divine en-
ergy, by touch or word or even look, from the guru to the [dis-
ciple] (Brent, 1972).
Further, with regard to the claimed power of the mind in healing,

as the widely admired Aurobindo (1953)—one of Wilber’s evident
heroes—himself put it:
It is my experience and the [spiritual partner] Mother’s that all

illnesses pass through the subtle consciousness and subtle body
before they enter the physical. If one is conscious, one can stop
it entering the physical, one can develop the power to do so.
We have done that millions of times.... Self-defense may be-
come so strong that the body becomes practically immune as
many yogis’ are.
Wilber’s second wife sadly died after a long battle with cancer,
providing the context in which he was first confronted in a highly
emotional way with often crassly applied New Age “blaming/respon-
sibility” ideas regarding disease. (Having lost my own mother in the
same way, I deeply sympathize with the suffering and support en-
tailed.) He himself further weathered a mysterious, exhausting illness
(RNase Enzyme Deficiency Disease, REDD) for several years in the
mid-’80s, the long-term effects of which, as of 2002, again had him
largely bedridden. He also suffered through the aforementioned six-
month staph infection, in which he lost access to the always-already
(but apparently not-right-now) One Taste state. Those points are
surely not irrelevant to his attitude toward the power of the mind with
regard to cancer and other illnesses, as expressed above, just as
Cohen’s perspective on responsibility and victimization cannot be
independent of his own “accidents.”
It is one thing to disparage New Agers for being “regressive” or
“pre-rational” in their reliance on astrology, etc. But why be so both-
NORMAN EINSTEIN 195
ered by them simply ascribing more power to the human mind in the
potential for healing than you feel is appropriate? And if Wilber really
has no tolerance for the “pre-rational” idea that we can heal our ill-
nesses through the power of our own (or of others’) minds and the
associated encouraged energy flows, why does he (2002a) have his
third (ex-)wife “doing industrial strength reiki” on him, in battling the
effects of his REDD? (If she can truly direct the flow of subtle ener-
gies, or even if Wilber himself can genuinely feel those beyond mere
imagination, there is a cool million dollars waiting for either of them
at www.randi.org. Short of their demonstrations of those claimed
skills in a properly controlled environment, however, the much more
likely explanation, for any betting man or woman, is that they are
both simply imagining the beneficial effects of her “healings.”)
Of course, while insisting that “something actually does happen
with gifted healers,” Wilber has simultaneously disputed their inter-
pretations of the effects of the subtle energies which they purport to
be able to move. But if such healers can actually see auras and chak-
ras, and move subtle energies, how could they so utterly misinterpret
the results of their related attempted healings? For, those purported
results would surely be visible in exactly the same auras. (Brennan
[1993], for one, explicitly claims exactly that clear, unmistakable
visibility.) Thus, there is precisely nothing that is open to “interpreta-
tion” in those healers’ claims. Nor should one feel the least bit com-
fortable in accepting the existence of subtle energies simply for one’s
own easily fooled or imagined experience of those in non-double-
blind environments, as is the case when kw vouches for their exis-
tence ... or touts the value of the Q-Link pendant, for that matter.
Beyond that, Wilber’s aforementioned excoriating of New Age
believers for their innocent position on healing cannot be meant sim-
ply to “spiritually awaken them.” On the contrary, their denigrated
view simply demands more responsibility than he evidently wishes to
ascribe to human actions—including his own and those of his late
wife. Indeed, that belief in the power of the mind, whether valid or
not, is no more (and no less) pre-rational or magical than is Wilber’s
own acceptance of psychic phenomena, and his own acknowledged
(even if merely imagined) perception of subtle energy flows, from
claimed healers and otherwise.
Wilber’s second wife actually entertained similar ideas to these

(with regard to responsibility), at a point where she felt that he was
blaming her for his lack of interest, at that time, in book writing:
[H]e may not want to feel responsible himself, it might be eas-

ier for him to think it’s [my] fault. What might be behind that?
Maybe he’s afraid it’s his fault. Maybe he doesn’t want to take
responsibility for his not writing....
Later that day I checked this scenario out with Ken, but
very gently, no blame. He gave me a gold star, I hit it pretty
close on the nose (in Wilber, 1991).
In any case, such patterns of behavior as Wilber admitted to his

own late wife never confine themselves to any one aspect or incident
in a person’s life. Rather, they shape all aspects of one’s existence,
whether one is consciously aware of that or not.
***
Of myth and magic, now, Wilber (2000b) has stated:
Unless otherwise indicated, when I use the word “mythic” it

refers to preformal, concrete-literal mythic images and sym-
bols, some aspects of which are in fact imbued with cognitive
inadequacies, for these myths claim as empirical fact many
things that can be empirically disproved—e.g., the volcano
erupts because it is personally mad at you; the clouds move
because they are following you. These preformal mythic be-
liefs, scholars from Piaget to Joseph Campbell have noted, are
always egocentrically focused and literally/concretely be-
lieved.
Consider, then, Wilber’s (1991; italics added) own attitude to-

ward the possible effect of his second wife’s death on the weather,
where 115 mph gale-force winds beat the surrounding area at exactly
the point of her passing:
The winds, I suppose, were coincidence. Nonetheless, the con-

stant rattling and shaking of the house simply added to the
feeling that something unearthly was happening. I remember
NORMAN EINSTEIN 197
trying to go back to sleep, but the house was rattling so hard I

got up and put some blankets around the windows in the bed-
room, fearing they would shatter. I finally drifted off, thinking,
“Treya is dying, nothing is permanent, everything is empty,
Treya is dying....”
That, as a simple reporting of facts, is fine. However, years later,

in his (2000a) journals, Wilber “coincidentally” reprinted a letter he
received from the spouse of a hospitalized, terminal cancer sufferer,
who had been touched by Treya’s story:
As [my wife] died in the afternoon a great storm and strong

rain came up. And I saw a great grey cloud going upstairs from
her body and drifting away out of the opened window. After
twenty minutes the storm was over.
It is difficult to imagine Wilber including that specific letter in

his reprints without it being implicitly in support of a “cosmic” nature
to his own experiences. That is so even in spite of his previous “I sup-
pose” (as opposed to a skeptical/rational “of course”) regard for the
“coincidental” nature of the winds blowing during his wife’s death.
After all, with the “great storm and strong rain” being explicitly asso-
ciated with a “great grey cloud” rising from the dying person’s body
in the latter case, could it really have been just coincidence for a simi-
lar storm to have arisen in his own wife’s death? (If Wilber thought
that that grey cloud and accompanying storm were pre-rational non-
sense, he need not have included them in his own reprint of the letter.
For, they are not at all essential to the man’s story. Indeed, he need
not have reprinted the fan letter at all, were it not to support his own
magical/mythical wishes.)
If Wilber’s winds (or Da’s “corona”) were real parapsychologi-
cal phenomena, beyond mere coincidence or imagination, that would
mean that real magic exists, in the ability of human thoughts, inten-
tions and/or emotions (i.e., subtle bodies) to affect the physical world.
And in that case, New Agers could not rationally be excoriated for
believing in such things. Rather, they should then instead be cele-
brated for having “correctly” divined and appreciated that aspect of
reality. (The fan’s wife made no recorded claim to be highly realized,
yet still purportedly manifested that windy “magic.” Thus, such
claimed phenomena could not be restricted here only to siddhis ac-

companying “great Realizers,” etc.)
Short of Treya’s death actually having affected, via real magic,
the same winds which blow not merely for Wilber but for all of us,
his implicit view of that phenomenon
is simply reflective of mythic and magical thinking. That’s

okay, but it’s not rational and if Wilber were to critique his
own episode he would see it (via his spectrum psychology
paradigm) as being “immature” (less inclusive, less rational,
etc.)....
Thus when I said Wilber was being narcissistic in his
analysis of those winds, I was using the very adjective that
Wilber himself on several occasions has used to illustrate a
pre/trans fallacy, a mistake where the New Ager or whomever
in question sees something mystical when it was merely
mythic, where someone sees something paranormal when it
was merely normal (Lane, 1996).
Note that Lane insightfully spotted that point a full four years
prior to Wilber’s reprinting of the “grey cloud” fan letter.
In relation to all of the above paranormality, further consider the
following recent perspective from Wilber (2003) himself, in expound-
ing on the nature of the chakras in his “comprehensive theory of sub-
tle energies”:
I will ... simply use one example: the overall summary of the
chakras given by Hiroshi Motoyama.
Wilber then goes on to explain, for his own demonstrative pur-

poses, Motoyama’s standard and non-controversial “theories of the
chakras,” from his book of the same name. (Motoyama himself is
founder and president of the California Institute for Human Science:
www.cihs.edu.)
There is, however, much more to Motoyama’s (2000) Karma
and Reincarnation worldview than that:
Ritual offerings of food and water are truly effective ways of

helping beings suffering in the astral dimension, particularly
the souls of people who have recently died. When we place an
NORMAN EINSTEIN 199
offering upon the altar, we don’t expect it to disappear because

we know that someone who has died cannot eat physical sub-
stances. When we expand our field of vision into the higher
dimensions, however, we can actually see spirits consuming
the offerings. They are consuming the “ki” [i.e., the chi or
prana] of the food and water, the astral energy of the objects
that exists even before the object manifests into the physical
world.
One assumes that Wilber would not himself endorse these latter
claims—of spirits eating subtle energy, etc. If not, however, why not?
If Motoyama’s clairvoyant perceptions of the chakras are taken as
valid, why would his comparable perceptions, through the same sub-
tle senses, of ghosts and astral gods not be taken as equally valid? Did
he see the chakras validly and clearly, but hallucinate everything else?
If not, how can you justify “picking and choosing” only what you
want to believe from those perceptions?
Of course, if such phenomena as Motoyama describes really do
exist, a lot of what Wilber denigrates as being “pre-rational” or the
product of regressive magical or mythical thought would not be so.
Rather, it would instead be appealing to aspects of reality which sim-
ply do not fit into his own theories. That point would apply specifi-
cally to sacrifices to nature spirits or to human ghosts who could very
conceivably actually be “personally mad at you.” Indeed, Motoyama
(2000) describes exactly such appeased ghostly anger in the very
same book, along with his psychic interactions with water and tree
spirits:
Yoichi had been dead for 800 years, yet his tortured spirit was
still able to affect me when I began to build our retreat center.
We began to pray for his soul in the Shrine. After three years
of such prayers, his resentment dissolved and I no longer ex-
perienced any negativity.
I could see that the Spirit of the tree was grieving about its im-
pending doom.
I saw that the Water Spirit was understandably outraged and

was retaliating by causing the family its present problems.
It is no large step from tree and water spirits to volcano and

cloud spirits; if the former were to exist, surely the latter would, too.
And according to Motoyama, the former do indeed exist, as surely (or
unsurely) as do the chakras which in turn figure into Wilber’s theories
of psychological/spiritual development and subtle energy.
Stepping further out from there into New Age la-la land, then,
Wilber (2003b) has bravely conjectured:
Internality is the form of spacetime’s self-prehension, a self-

organization through self-transcendence (to put it in dry third-
person terms), or—in first-person terms much more accurate—
the love that moves the sun and other stars.
“Love will keep us together.”

Interestingly, the tail end of the above block quote is actually
taken, without attribution, from Dante’s Divine Comedy. The overall
block itself comes from a series of excerpts from a forthcoming
planned book in Wilber’s “Kosmos” trilogy, the first installment of
which was his Sex, Ecology, Spirituality—“one of the most signifi-
cant books ever published,” according to Larry Dossey. And later in
that very same online series is where Wilber (2003) most recently
accuses David Bohm of purveying “simplistic notions” and “epicy-
cles” in his Nobel-caliber reformulation of quantum mechanics.
‘Cause obviously, a “love that moves the sun and other stars” is
way more grounded in clear thinking than is an implicate order which
follows from the mathematics of quantum theory, right?
***
There is, unfortunately, still more which must be noted about Wil-
ber’s relationship with Adi Da.
In an aforementioned open letter to the Da community, Wilber
(1998a) expressed his opinion that Adi Da is “the greatest living Real-
izer.” He did that while yet admitting that, not having experienced
satsanga with Ramana Maharshi or other past great sages, he could
not say with “personal authority” that Da was the greatest Realizer
ever.
In his foreword to Inner Directions’ recent (2000) reissue of
Talks with Ramana Maharshi, however, Wilber offers no such cave-
NORMAN EINSTEIN 201
ats to his “personal authority.” That comes in spite of his having

never sat with, or even met, Maharshi:
“Talks” is the living voice of the greatest sage [italics added]

of the twentieth century.
One may well be impressed by Maharshi’s “unadorned, bottom-

line” mysticism of simply inquiring, of himself, “Who am I?”—in the
attempt to “slip into the witnessing Self.” Likewise, his claim that
“Love is not different from the Self ... the Self is love” (in Walsh,
1999) is sure to make one feel warm and fuzzy inside. Nevertheless,
the man was not without his eccentricities:
[T]he Indian sage Ramana Maharshi once told Paul Brunton

that he had visions of cities beneath the sacred mountain of
Arunachala where he resided all his adult life (Feuerstein,
1998).
Indeed, in Talk 143 from Volume 1 of the infamous Talks with

Sri Ramana Maharshi (2000)—the very text upon which Wilber has
above commented—we find:
In visions I have seen caves, cities with streets, etc., and a

whole world in it.... All the siddhas [“perfected beings”] are
reputed to be there.
If the choice is between that and “astral moon cannibal slaves,”

we could indeed side more safely with Maharshi. Were such subterra-
nean cities to be taken as existing on the physical level, however, they
could not so exist now or in the past without previous, historic
“Golden Ages” and their respective civilizations, with those civiliza-
tions being more advanced than our own. That idea, however, is gen-
erally explicitly taken as being the product only of magical/mythical
thinking and the like:
[T]he romantic transcendentalists ... usually confuse average-

mode consciousness and growing-tip consciousness, or aver-
age lower and truly advanced, [and] use that confusion to
claim that the past epochs were some sort of Golden Age
which we have subsequently destroyed. They confuse magic

and psychic, myth and subtle archetype (Wilber, 1983a).
The question then becomes: Do you believe that “all the sid-
dhas” are living in (even astral) cities and caves, beneath one particu-
lar mountain in India? (Mountains are actually regarded as holy in
cultures throughout the world, and as being symbols of the astral
spine. To take their holiness and “natural abode of souls” nature liter-
ally, however, is highly unusual.) If not, was the “greatest sage of the
century” hallucinating? If so....
Or, even if not:
All the food [in Maharshi’s ashram] was prepared by brahmins

so that it should remain uncontaminated by contact with lower
castes and foreigners....
“Bhagavan always insisted on caste observances in the
ashram here, though he was not rigidly orthodox” [said Miss
Merston, a long-time devotee of Maharshi] (Marshall, 1963).
[Maharshi] allowed himself to be worshiped like a Buddha

(Daniélou, 1987).
“Greatest sage”—for whom “the Self is love,” but lower castes

and foreigners evidently aren’t, in spite of his supposed impartial wit-
nessing of all things equally, and in spite of the fact that he was not
otherwise “rigidly orthodox” or bent on following religious proscrip-
tions.
Not finished with giving unsolicited ratings of spiritual person-
ages he has never met, on the simple basis of their extant writings,
Wilber (2000a; italics added) recently had this to say about Auro-
bindo:
When it was also understood in the East that the Great Chain
[or ontological hierarchy of Being, manifesting through causal,
astral and physical realms] did indeed unfold or evolve over
time, the great Aurobindo expounded the notion with an un-
equalled genius.
In Wilber (2002)—“Sidebar A” to his Boomeritis novel—he fur-

ther has one of that book’s characters refer to Aurobindo (1872 –
NORMAN EINSTEIN 203
1950) as “the world’s greatest philosopher-sage.” One might try to

argue that that sidebar is only a “character” speaking from a perspec-
tive which Wilber himself does not hold. Boomeritis, however, was
originally written as a non-fiction work, which Wilber only later de-
cided to transform (with questionable success) into a “true story,
loosely based on fiction.” Plus, in his earlier (1980) Atman Project, he
already had Aurobindo designated as “India’s greatest modern sage.”
And, more recently, in his foreword to A. S. Dalal’s (2000) A Greater
Psychology, he has again averred that “Sri Aurobindo Ghose was In-
dia’s greatest modern philosopher-sage.” Likewise, in his own
(2000b) Integral Psychology, he has Aurobindo appointed as India’s
“greatest modern philosopher-sage.”
So, if there’s one thing we can safely conclude....
Georg Feuerstein and Rajneesh/Osho, among others, have fully
shared Wilber’s complimentary evaluation of Aurobindo. Bharati
(1976), however, offered a somewhat different perspective:
I do not agree with much of what he said; and I believe his Life
Divine ... could be condensed to about one-fifth of its size
without any substantial loss of content and message.... [Q]uite
tedious reading for all those who have done mystical and reli-
gious reading all their lives, but fascinating and full of prosely-
tizing vigor for those who haven’t, who want something of the
spirit, and who are impressionable.
For my own part, I would say largely the same about Adi Da’s
Only-Written-By-Him books, in his “Dawn Horseshit” days and oth-
erwise. Further, as so often happens, it appears that much of “what is
good is not original, and what is original is not good,” even in Da’s
theoretical teachings:
Adi Da’s worldview is summarized in his teaching of the

seven stages of life [as expounded in his Dawn Horse Testa-
ment], a series of levels of development. This worldview,
clearly, is not original. It resembles in some respects Gurd-
jieff’s seven types of men (which itself borrowed heavily from
still earlier teachings) (Smith, 2001).
Such uncredited (and obviously derivative) borrowing, further,

apparently did not stop with Da Teacher:
It is possible to look at [Wilber’s] early but seminal book The

Atman Project and see how his idea of successive stages of
psycho-spiritual development grew out of Da’s seven stages of
life thesis (Kazlev, 2003).
Serious concerns have further been raised, in Kazlev (2004) and

Hemsell (2002), regarding the possible significant misrepresentation
of Aurobindo’s ideas by Wilber.
Aurobindo himself, in any case, whether a “great philosopher” or
not, could well be viewed as having wobbled mightily about the cen-
ter, if one were to consider his purported contributions to the Allied
World War II effort:
Sri Aurobindo put all his [e.g., astral] Force behind the Allies
and especially Churchill. One particular event in which he had
a hand was the successful evacuation from Dunkirk. As some
history books note, the German forces refrained “for inexpli-
cable reasons” from a quick advance which would have been
fatal for the Allies (Huchzermeyer, 1998).
Other admirers of Aurobindo (e.g., GuruNet, 2003) regard that

Allied escape as being aided by a fog which the yogi explicitly
helped, through his powers of consciousness, to roll in over the water,
concealing the retreating forces.
Aurobindo’s spiritual partner, “the Mother,” is likewise believed
to have advanced the wartime labor via metaphysical means:
Due to her occult faculties the Mother was able to look deep
into Hitler’s being and she saw that he was in contact with an
asura [astral demon] who is at the origin of wars and makes
every possible effort to prevent the advent of world unity
(Huchzermeyer, 1998).
When Hitler was gaining success after success and Mother was
trying in the opposite direction, she said the shining being who
was guiding Hitler used to come to the ashram from time to
time to see what was happening. Things changed from bad to
worse. Mother decided on a fresh strategy. She took on the ap-
pearance of that shining being, appeared before Hitler and ad-
vised him to attack Russia. On her way back to the ashram, she
NORMAN EINSTEIN 205
met that being. The being was intrigued by Mother having sto-
len a march over him. Hitler’s attack on Russia ensured his
downfall....
Mother saw in her meditation some Chinese people had
reached Calcutta and recognized the danger of that warning.
Using her occult divine power, she removed the danger from
the subtle realms. Much later when the Chinese army was edg-
ing closer to India’s border, a shocked India did not know
which way to turn. The Chinese decided on their own to with-
draw, much to the world’s surprise. Mother had prevented
them from advancing against India by canceling their power in
the subtle realms (MSS, 2003).
Nor were those successful attempts at saving the world from the
clutches of evil even the most impressive of the Mother’s claimed
subtle activities:
She had live contacts with several gods. Durga used to come to
Mother’s meditations regularly. Particularly during the Durga
Puja when Mother gave darshan, Durga used to come a day in
advance. On one occasion, Mother explained to Durga the sig-
nificance of surrender to the Supreme. Durga said because she
herself was a goddess, it never struck her that she should sur-
render to a higher power. Mother showed Durga the progress
she could make by surrendering to the Supreme. Durga was
agreeable and offered her surrender to the Divine (MSS, 2003).
The Mother further believed herself to have been, in past lives,

Queen Elizabeth of England—the sixteenth-century daughter of
Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Also, Catherine of Russia (wife of Pe-
ter the Great), an Egyptian Queen, the mother of Moses, and Joan of
Arc.
Her diary entries reveal that even during her illness she contin-
ued through her sadhana to exert an occult influence on men
and events (Nirodbaran, 1990).
[The Mother] is the Divine Mother [i.e., as an incarnation or

avatar] who has consented to put on her the cloak of obscurity
and suffering and ignorance so that she can effectively lead us
—human beings—to Knowledge and Bliss and Ananda and to

the Supreme Lord (in Aurobindo, 1953).
In the person of [the Mother], Aurobindo thus saw the descent

of the Supermind. He believed she was its avatara or descent
into the Earth plane. As the incarnate Supermind she was
changing the consciousness on which the Earth found itself,
and as such her work was infallible.... She does not merely
embody the Divine, he instructed one follower, but is in reality
the Divine appearing to be human (Minor, 1999; italics added).
India’s independence from British rule followed soon after the

end of WWII. Aurobindo himself marked the occasion in public
speech:
August 15th, 1947 is the birthday of free India. It marks for her
the end of an old era, the beginning of a new age....
August 15th is my own birthday and it is naturally gratify-
ing to me that it should have assumed this vast significance. I
take this coincidence, not as a fortuitous accident, but as the
sanction and seal of the Divine Force that guides my steps on
the work with which I began life, the beginning of its full frui-
tion (in Nirodbaran, 1990).
This, then, on top of his believed Allied war efforts, was the
grandiose state of mind of “the world’s greatest philosopher-sage.”
Note further that this, like the Mother’s diary entries, was Auro-
bindo’s own documented claim, not merely a possible exaggeration
made on his behalf by his followers. For all of the private hubris and
narcissism of our world’s guru-figures, it is rare for any of them to so
brazenly exhibit the same publicly, as in the above inflations.
And, as always, there are ways of ensuring loyalty to the guru
and his Mother, as Aurobindo (1953; italics added) himself noted:
[A student] had been progressing extremely well because he

opened himself to the Mother; but if he allows stupidities like
[an unspecified, uncomplimentary remark made by another
devotee about the Mother] to enter his mind, it may influence
him, close him to the Mother and stop his progress.
NORMAN EINSTEIN 207
As for [the disciple who made the “imbecilic” remark], if

he said and thought a thing like that (about the Mother) it ex-
plains why he has been suffering in health so much lately. If
one makes oneself a mouthpiece of the hostile forces and lends
oneself to their falsehoods, it is not surprising that something
in him should get out of order.
To a follower who later asked, “What is the best means for the
sadhaks [disciples] to avoid suffering due to the action of the hostile
forces?” Aurobindo (1953; italics added) replied: “Faith in the Mother
and complete surrender.”
[Physical nearness to the Mother, e.g., via living in the ashram]

is indispensable for the fullness of the sadhana on the physical
plane. Transformation of the physical and external being is not
possible otherwise [italics added] (Aurobindo, 1953).
Such teachings, of course, provide a comparable reason to stay in

the ashram as would the fear of being pursued by negative forces such
as Trungpa’s “furies” upon leaving. In all such cases, whatever the
original motivations of the leaders in emphasizing such constraints
may have been, there is an obvious effect in practice. That is, an ef-
fect of making their disciples afraid to leave their communities, or
even to question the “infallibility” of the “enlightened” leaders in
question.
As with other important spiritual action figures, of course, the
exalted philosopher-sage known as Aurobindo did not evolve to that
point without having achieved greatness in previous lives:
Sri Aurobindo was known in his ashram as the rebirth of Na-

poleon. Napoleon’s birthday was also August 15th.... In his
previous births, it was believed he was Leonardo da Vinci,
Michelangelo, Krishna and many other persons too. Someone
asked Sri Aurobindo whether he had been Shakespeare as well,
but could not elicit an answer (GuruNet, 2003).
Being an incarnation of Krishna would, of course, have made

Aurobindo an avatar, as he himself indeed explicitly claimed (1953)
to be regardless. As we will see more of later, however, there is com-
petition among other spiritual paths for many of those same reincar-
national honors.
Further, da Vinci lived from 1452 to 1519, while Michelangelo
walked this Earth from 1475 to 1564. Given the chronological overlap
between those two lives, this reincarnation, if taken as true, could thus
only have been “one soul incarnating/emanating in two bodies.” That
is, it could not have been da Vinci himself reincarnating as Michelan-
gelo. Thus, the latter’s skills could not have been based on the “past
life” work of the former.
Or perhaps no one ever bothered to simply look up the relevant
dates, before making and publicizing those extravagant claims.
At any rate, the purported da Vinci connection does not end
there:
[E]arly in 1940, [a disciple of Aurobindo’s] came in and

showed the Mother a print of the celebrated “Mona Lisa,”
and the following brief conversation ensued:
Mother: Sri Aurobindo was the artist.
Champaklal: Leonardo da Vinci?
Mother smiled sweetly and said: yes.
Champaklal: Mother, it seems this [painting] is yours?
Mother: Yes, do you not see the resemblance? (Light, 2003).
Evidently, then, not only was Aurobindo allegedly the reincarna-

tion of Leonardo da Vinci, but his spiritual partner, the Mother,
claimed to be the subject of the Mona Lisa portrait.
“Since the beginning of earthly history,” the Mother explained,

“Sri Aurobindo has always presided over the great earthly
transformations, under one form or another, under one name or
another” (Paine, 1998).
For my own part, however, statements such as that—not to men-

tion conjectures as to which individual is the “greatest living Real-
izer,” etc.—remind me of nothing so much as my own growing up
with a hyperactive cousin who could not stop arguing about which
was the “strongest dinosaur.” My own attitude to such conversations
is simply: “Please, stop. Please.”
In any case, even such “great earthly transformers” as Aurobindo
still evidently stand “on the shoulders of other spiritual giants”:
NORMAN EINSTEIN 209
It is a fact that I was hearing constantly the voice of Vivekan-

anda speaking to me for a fortnight in the jail [in 1908] in my
solitary mediation and felt his presence (Aurobindo, 1953).
Aurobindo and his Mother again claimed to have single-handed-

ly turned the tide of WWII, and asserted that the former sage has
“presided over the great earthly transformations” for time immemo-
rial. If one believes that, the impressiveness of the spirit of Vivekan-
anda allegedly visiting him in prison would pale by comparison. The
same would be true for the idea of Aurobindo being “the world’s
greatest philosopher-sage.” For, the yogi made far more grandiose
claims himself, and indeed could therefore have easily taken such
contemporary recognition of his greatness as being little more than
“damning with faint praise.”
But then, that only goes to show the importance of differentiat-
ing between the “greatest Exaggerator” of all time—where Vivekan-
anda himself, “a true master of hyperbole” (Kripal, 1995), merits con-
sideration—and the “greatest living Exaggerator.”
At any rate, short of believing that Aurobindo’s and the Mother’s
vital roles in WWII were exactly what they themselves claimed those
to be, there are only two possible conclusions. That is, that both he
and she were wildly deluded, and unable to distinguish fact from fic-
tion or reality from their own fantasies; or that they were both out-
right fabricating their own life-myths.
So: Do you believe that one “world’s greatest philosopher-sage”
and his “infallible” spiritual partner—who herself “had live contacts
with several gods,” teaching them in the process—in southern India
radically changed the course of human history in unparalleled ways,
simply via their use of metaphysical Force and other occult faculties?
I, personally, do not.
***
As with his probable misrepresentations of Aurobindo’s work,

Wilber’s understanding of Carl Jung’s ideas regarding archetypes has
been seriously questioned by the Jungian psychologist V. Walter
Odajnyk, in Appendix A of his (1993) Gathering the Light. Indeed,
Odajnyk there explicitly regarded kw as having an “erroneous view”
of Jung’s position:
Wilber’s criticism of Jung’s notion of archetypes is misin-

formed. Contrary to what Wilber states, Jung does refer to the
archetypes as “the patterns upon which all other manifestations
are based”....
[Further,] contrary to what Wilber claims, Jung does not
locate the archetypes only at the beginning of the evolutionary
spectrum—they are present both at the beginning and at the
end....
The spirit Mercurius is the archetype that expresses the
notion, stated much too generally by Wilber, that “the ascent
of consciousness was drawn toward the archetypes by the ar-
chetypes themselves.” Far from being a criticism of Jung, this
was Jung’s discovery and not Wilber’s....
[Likewise,] it is Jung and not Wilber who first proposed
clear distinctions among “collective prepersonal, collective
personal, and collective transpersonal” elements of the psyche
[cf. Wilber’s celebrated “pre/trans fallacy” insights].
I am aware of no response by Wilber to Odajnyk’s concerns.

And I personally am in no informed position to evaluate who of those
two is properly representing Jung’s thought. Nevertheless, if past ex-
perience is any indication, that shy silence on Wilber’s part, coming
on the heels of the many other documented misrepresentations by him
of others’ work, would place the smart money on Odajnyk’s presenta-
tion as being valid, at least on the above points.
And note further that Odajnyk’s critique, too, was given well
prior to Crittenden’s assertion—first made in 1998, and reprinted by
Wilber’s own Integral Institute in 2004—that no such “believable
criticisms” have ever been made of kw’s work. Further, Odajnyk’s
book was put into print by Wilber’s own long-time publisher, Shamb-
hala. Thus, kw could not reasonably have been unaware of its exis-
tence. (Shambhala—“the leading publisher of Buddhist books in the
western world”—also publishes Trungpa’s writings. Its president and
editor-in-chief, Samuel Bercholz, has served as a trustee of the
Naropa Institute [Shambhala, 2004].)
Odajnyk’s comments on Wilber’s early work, too, are worth not-
ing:
When it comes to psychological development, we know that it

is possible to point out a person, or a culture, with highly
NORMAN EINSTEIN 211
evolved intelligence and consciousness while his, or its, in-

stinctive, emotional, and ethical development lags far behind....
In other words, it is possible to have a higher consciousness
that is “transcendent, transpersonal, and transtemporal” and a
personal unconscious that is “instinctive, impulsive, libidinous,
id-ish, animal, ape-like.” I know that for Wilber [in his early
work, pre-1981] this is not possible by definition, but defini-
tion is theory.
Wilber’s more recent (see 2000e) psychological model includes

more than a dozen “streams” of development, or quasi-independent
“lines”—of cognition, needs, sexuality, motivation, self-identity, etc.
Those lines were first introduced by kw (1998) in his “Wilber-3”
phase, beginning in the early ’80s. And such epicyclic streams/lines
do indeed now allow for individuals to be simultaneously at, for ex-
ample, a high level of cognitive or of psychic/spiritual development,
but a low moral stage.
***
[Adi Da] makes a lot of mistakes. These are immediately rein-

terpreted as great teaching events, which is silly (Wilber,
1996a).
We saw earlier that, in Wilber’s world, Trungpa’s “Merwin incident”

was an “outrageous, inexcusable, and completely stupid mistake” on
the part of the master. In the same world, however, the more-revered
(by Wilber) Adi Da’s far worse alleged behaviors are simply “mis-
takes” without pejorative adjectives. His followers, further, are evi-
dently to blame for being “silly” in taking those as “great teaching
events.” Such a regard, of course, completely overlooks the fact that,
if one is truly “completely surrendered” to a guru-figure, there are no
possible criteria which one could use to distinguish between valid
“teaching events” and “mistakes” on his part. (Plus, Da has again re-
portedly told his followers that he “can do no wrong” [Feuerstein,
1992].) Rather, it is all equally “divinely inspired,” and all equally
done “for the benefit of all sentient beings.”
Further, to the pathetic excuse that the most objectionable events
in any community may have happened “twenty years ago,” the proper
response is: If we have learned one thing from the French, it is plus ça
change, plus c’est la même chose. That is, “the more things change,
the more they stay the same.” What, then, has changed in the psy-
chologies of people who would have allowed such reported atrocities
to occur in the first place, and hardly blinked a collective eye at the
instruction to “keep it quiet”? (A quick glance at the Daism Research
Index at Lightmind [2004] discloses that nothing whatsoever has
changed in that regard.) Would you trust such “miraculous corona”-
seeing people with your mental and physical health? Would you sur-
render completely to such guru-figures and their obedient followers?
(Short of that complete surrender, you are still “resisting the grace of
the Avatar.” Why are you resisting? Ah, ego.)
Wilber’s own writings give no indication that he has ever been
spiritually disciplined over an extended period of time in a “crazy
wisdom” environment. (By “an extended period of time” is meant a
minimum of six continuous months. At one point, he was considering
[1991] taking a three-year meditation retreat at an ashram run by Kalu
Rinpoche, but evidently never actually did so.) He has attended sat-
sanga at the feet of Adi Da on the Mountain of Attention. But surely
even he must realize that there is a huge difference between spending
a few days or weeks as a guest in such an environment, versus being
trapped there for months or years.
Further, according to Georg Feuerstein in Lowe (1996), Da him-
self predictably has a strong “interest in enlisting the assistance and
allegiance of the rich and famous.” (Feuerstein was Da’s spokesper-
son in the 1980s, and is a past editor for the Dawn Horse Press.) That
is, a vested interest in enlisting persons such as Ken Wilber and Ed
Kowalczyk. (The latter is the lead singer of the band Live, who had
earlier named his pet turtle “Murti,” after Krishnamurti, and was
“transported into a state of wonderment and awe” by at least one of
Da’s vastly overrated books.) Also, New Age composer Ray Lynch,
plus one of Pearl Jam’s former drummers, and writer Lee Sannella.
And:
We were told that [Da] tried to approach Madonna, and draw

her in as a devotee (Elias, 2000).
As to the difference between being in any such community as a

“star” versus as a peon, Bailey (2003) explained:
NORMAN EINSTEIN 213
For most devotees, a visit to the [Sai Baba] ashram means sit-
ting in the darshan lines looking on, wishing and hoping for
interaction, whilst listening to the stories others tell. This is
very different to being “in there”—seeing how things work be-
hind the scenes.
The same is true, of course, of every other ashram, under every

other spiritual leader under the corona-surrounded sun:
Even journalists who would come to write exposés on the do-

ings at [Rajneesh’s ashram near] Antelope would come out
feeling, The place is really a nice place, those people are
really fine people (Strelley, 1987).
[A]t the center of Moonism is the requirement of secrecy ... we

had heard only a carefully devised elementary lecture [when
first visiting our daughter in Moon’s community] (Underwood
and Underwood, 1979).
[W]hen government visitors, doctors, even our attorney ...

came to Jonestown we put on a tremendous show for them.
The guests were wined and dined with foods we never got to
eat. In fact, when they looked into our faces we really were
happy because on these special occasions we, too, got better
food and we worked only half a day (Layton, 1998).
The tours were entirely staged, with church members rehearsed

in their roles, outfitted in borrowed clothes to look the part,
and coached ahead of time on what to say.... If a visit went off
successfully and the outsider went away impressed, Jones
would switch to a new role. He would stand before the congre-
gation and mock the visitor, imitating his or her voice, repeat-
ing questions asked and laughing at how the women visitors
had brushed against him suggestively (Singer, 2003).
Well-meaning individuals thus duped even prior to Jones’ flight

to Guyana included Jerry Brown, activist Angela Davis, future San
Francisco mayor Willie Brown, and President Carter’s wife, Rosalyn.
On the basis of similar “dog and pony” shows, Oregon journalist Kirk
Braun (1984) wrote “a highly favorable book on ranch life” in Raj-
neeshpuram (Gordon, 1987). And astonishingly, one of the daughters

of Congressman Leo Ryan—whose cold-blooded murder by Jones’
men in Guyana precipitated the infamous cyanide poisonings—later
became an ardent follower of Rajneesh, living in the Oregon ashram.
Contrast all that we have seen so far, then, with Wilber’s (1983;
italics added) ridiculous presentation of his own limited, short-term
experiences:
I have been a participant-observer in almost a dozen nonprob-

lematic new religious movements, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist. In
none of those groups was I ever subjected to any harsh degree
of authoritarian pressure (discipline, yes, pressure, no). In fact,
the authoritarian pressure in these groups never even equalled
that which I experienced in graduate school in biochemistry.
The masters in these groups were looked upon as great teach-
ers, not big daddies, and their authority was always that of a
concerned physician, not totem boss.
Rajneesh, it seems, would have agreed:
The people who believe in God are really the people who can-
not trust in themselves. They need a father figure, a Big Daddy
(in Gordon, 1987).
Bhagwan, of course, was no such “Big Daddy” himself, as he

emphasized (Gordon, 1987) even years after the Oregon debacle.
“Concerned physicians,” though, do not typically tell you that, if
you leave their care to see a different doctor, you will “suffer unbear-
able, subtle, continuous anguish, and disasters will pursue you like
furies” (cf. Trungpa), etc. Nor are they generally involved in the al-
leged creation of pornographic films. And when was the last time a
doctor bedded your spouse or partner, on the completely untenable
pretense of enlightening both him/her and you?
As the Mill Valley Record (Colin, et al., 1985) further reported:
One woman says that repeated group lesbian sexual acts, in-
volving dildos, took place under [Adi Da’s] command as late
as 1982. Another woman says she has sustained permanent
cervical damage as a result of participation in similar incidents.
NORMAN EINSTEIN 215
“Concerned physicians.” And note again how, incredibly,

Wilber’s assertion that “‘crazy wisdom’ occurs in a very strict ethical
atmosphere” was made in 1996, a full decade after news of Da’s
“problematic” (Wilber’s word) alleged activities had become public!
It also came well after Osel Tendzin’s transmission of AIDS to his
followers, knowing full well that he was infected with HIV but re-
fraining from informing his sexual partners of that.
“Strict ethical atmosphere,” indeed. If “denial is more than just a
river in Egypt,” Wilber should start walking like an Egyptian any day
now.
Of course, with regard to “concerned physicians,” there is al-
ways the remote possibility that Wilber’s medical and scholastic ex-
periences might have been of such a horrific (or orgiastic) nature as to
leave even the likes of Stephen King (or Hugh Hefner) frozen with
fear (or envy). Short of that unlikelihood, however, his attempts at
relating ashram life to “concerned physicians” and “graduate-school
stress” need not (and should not) be taken the least bit seriously. For,
in no way do those ingenuous claims even come close to matching the
readily available, relevant information.
One may embark on any series of short-term “intensive retreats,”
experiencing grand spiritual realizations during those periods. That,
however, again does not even begin to count, as far as perceiving the
real pressures put on long-term, non-celebrity members of spiritual
communities. To put it more flippantly: You may spend a couple of
weeks in India, but that doesn’t make you an East Indian. For, in
Jung’s terms, all the time you were there, you were “breathing bottled
air,” or seeing everything from within a pre-existing Western, rational
perspective. Such a “vacation” cannot in any way be compared to
growing up within the environment, or even to spending years or dec-
ades in it.
If all of that leaves one wondering what specific relationship
Wilber has to Adi Da and his community:
Wilber told me he was a “Friend” of the [Adi Da] group—a

non-committed involvement (Lane, 1996).
[T]o be a “Friend” of the Johannine Daist Communion one

should contribute $70 or more and subscribe to The Laughing
Man Magazine (Lane, 1996a).
It is, indeed, only from such a safe distance that one could make
completely unrealistic, purely theoretical assertions such as the fol-
lowing:
[T]he true sangha always retains access to, and retains an ap-
propriate place for, rational inquiry, logical reflection, system-
atic study of other philosophical frameworks, and critical ap-
praisal of its own teachings in light of related areas (Wilber,
1983b).
Note, however, that Adi Da’s, Trungpa’s and Cohen’s communi-

ties were/are all undoubtedly “true sanghas,” by any reasonable defi-
nition, and certainly would have been such in Wilber’s view. Indeed,
the communities of nearly every spiritual leader discussed at any
length herein would have qualified as “true sanghas,” offering “au-
thentic, transformative spirituality.” The only possible exceptions to
that would be Rajneesh and Scientology, and of course Jim Jones, the
Hare Krishnas and the Moonies. Yet, as we have seen, all indications
are that in no way could the teachings be “critically appraised” in any
of those environments without severe reported negative conse-
quences.
Overtly displayed skepticism [cf. “critical appraisal” or non-

conformity] might be a barrier to entering the Vajrayana [in
Trungpa’s sangha]. One Seminarian drank a toast to Vajra hell
at a party, was reported to the staff, and found himself ques-
tioned very closely before they would allow him to proceed....
I told my interviewer that if I had cause to leave the organiza-
tion I would do so, and I did not believe the furies of Vajra hell
would offer me anything to compare with the pain of divorce.
This display of independence made me a doubtful candidate,
and I had to pass a second interview (Butterfield, 1994).
If you resisted Free John, it meant you were failing to live up

to his teaching (Jaclyn Estes, in [Neary, 1985a]).
Estes was formerly one of Da’s “inner circle of wives,” living in

the community from 1974 to 1976.
Likewise, consider Andrew Cohen’s reported infantile response
to the journalist who dared to note the irony between his hairstyle
NORMAN EINSTEIN 217
versus the shaved heads of his followers. Where, exactly, is the room
for “critical appraisal” of the teachings in such a constricted environ-
ment?
Wilber’s evidently missing, committed, long-term residential re-
lationship under any such guru-figure is exactly where the real prob-
lems with “Rude Boy” behavior, and the associated isolation and au-
thoritarian control, would start to show. Such a lack of long-term
residence further avoids daily discipline to exactly the same extent as
would one’s following of an “Ascended Master,” no longer present on
the earthly plane, as is common in New Age circles. The positive as-
pect of each of those, however, is that you are then just bowing before
an “imaginary guru.” Far worse to surrender your better judgment to
someone of flesh and blood who has a great deal to gain from your
unthinking obedience.
After being burned once with Adi Da, however, Wilber has inex-
cusably gone back for more with Andrew Cohen. That is, he has gone
back there via safely endorsing Cohen from a distance, as he did with
Adi Da, without actually living under their respective disciplines.
(Cohen proudly put his own grandiosity into print—offering glaring
warning signs, for anyone who wished to see them—as early as 1992.
Has Wilber still not read those early books, even while endorsing the
more recent ones? Or, if he has read them, how could he imagine that
Cohen’s near-messianic view of himself would not find its way into
his reported treatment of his disciples? To be the “foremost theoreti-
cian in transpersonal and integral psychology,” and not have been
able to see that, strains credibility. Anyone passing Psych 101 should
have been able to do better.
To make that same gross mistake twice is, quite frankly, an indi-
cation that one doesn’t learn very quickly. Or, perhaps, that the same,
celebrated “rude” behavior is too latently present within one’s own
psychology, and is simply looking for a vicarious outlet.
Either way, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me.”
Of course, if stick-swinging “Rude Boys” who’ll “roast your
ass” (“breathing fire” over “hot coals” while “frying your ego,” etc.)
are really what get you hot....
In any case, none of that lamentable behavior on Wilber’s part
could do anything to lower the regard given him by his friends and
followers, or even touted by himself for himself:
On a practical level, Wilber’s greatest contribution may be as a

critic of teachers, gurus, techniques, ideas, and systems that
promise routes to encompassing truth but are in fact incom-
plete, misleading, or misguided. “I’m the guy,” Wilber told me
only half-jokingly, “who comes in after the party and tries to
straighten up the mess” (Schwartz, 1996).
In any such self-appointed cleaning, however, one must take care

that one does not accidentally knock over the half-empty bottles from
the night before, or carelessly dump the ashtrays onto the floor, lest
one create an even greater mess than one began with.
One need not be the “Molly Maid™ of consciousness studies” to
see that.
In the end, then, David Lane (1996) put it very well:
When it comes to guru appraisements, Wilber is just plain na-

ïve. He is as gullible as the rest of us and given his track record
with Da perhaps more so.
What is perhaps so worrisome about all of this, of course,
is that Wilber does not show the kind of level-headed dis-
crimination that is necessary to separate the wheat from the
chaff. It would be one thing to admit to a bit of “greenness”
(e.g., “Hey, I am a sucker when it comes to perfect masters”),
but it is quite another to pose like you are a seasoned veteran
of the guru wars.
More recently, Wilber has contributed a philosophical commen-

tary track for the DVD version of the Matrix series of movies, at the
invitation of the Wachowski brothers.
If he’s done as well there as in his other endeavors, Hollywood
may never recover.
***
None of the above readily researchable concerns, again, have had any
effect at all on Wilber’s admirers and students, as one of the latter
(Reynolds, 2004) has recently and disconcertingly demonstrated:
One of the more useful ways that I envision Ken Wilber and
his work is to see him as a bodhisattva serving the enlighten-
NORMAN EINSTEIN 219
ment of other sentient beings.... Having worked under his tute-

lage for nearly a decade, I have personally seen the command-
ing power and adeptness to which he pursues this aim....
I like to see Wilber as a modern-day human-embodiment
of Manjushri.
Manjushri is a “perfectly enlightened Buddha,” and is the Bud-

dhist “Lord of the Word,” i.e., the figure is a god.
Manjushri, as god of the Word, is the universal icon of the lib-

erative power of the Word (Thurman, 1991).
Of course, in any non-Buddhist context, “liberating Words”

would be seen to refer to the averred literal cosmic sound of Om or
the Word of God, not to any mere physical writings as Reynolds takes
them. But that is a separate issue.
Adulation such as the above, from Reynolds, could have come
equally well from the mouths of any of the loyal followers of any of
the spiritual teachers we have already met herein. And indeed, such
behavior constitutes part of the problem with Wilber’s increasingly
revered place in the world. Worse, Reynolds’ praise, as of this writ-
ing, exists just a single mouse-click away from the home page of
Wilber’s website. That is, the link to it is displayed prominently on
that home page with, one may safely assume, Wilber’s explicit ap-
proval and sanction for that obeisance.
Red-flag, rapidly-losing-perspective (in my opinion) things like
that, plus kw’s previous excited endorsements of various indefensible
“Rude Boys,” may well leave one feeling somewhat sick to one’s
stomach. There is, however, a partial antidote. That is, individuals
who may by now have very reasonable and understandable concerns
about the caliber of Wilber’s confidently given but frequently baldly
wrong advice may wish to meditate on the following cleansing idea,
courtesy of the former NFL star quarterback Joe Theisman:
Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A

genius is somebody like Norman Einstein.
Cheers, then, to the “Norman Einstein of consciousness studies.”

And condolences to the “Wilber of physics” and the “Wilber of
mathematics,” not to mention the “Wilber of evolution,” whoever
they may be, given the man’s radically embarrassing, F-grade per-
formance in each of those fields.
Put another way: If you’re going to be an arrogant know-it-all,
trashing other people’s ideas while claiming that it’s for their own
spiritual benefit, it behooves you to get it right. Screwing up on basic,
high-school-level ideas, while grossly misrepresenting the genuinely
brilliant work of your primary competitor, is bad enough. (Bohm was
a near guru-figure to the New Age movement in the 1980s, for the
application of his implicate order to the “physics and consciousness”
arena. Wilber has enjoyed a similar position in the related area of
transpersonal/integral psychology during and since the same period.
Thus, the designation of “primary competitor” is quite appropriate.)
But when one stoops to indefensibly encouraging others to “surrender
completely” to one or another “Jonestown”-like (kw’s comparison)
figure on top of that, one crosses a line from mere laughable igno-
rance into dangerous stupidity.
One would expect more from a compassionate and wise (meta-
phorical) “incarnation of Manjushri,” no? And would one not also
have expected more from the academic peers and graduate-degreed
admirers of such a “sage,” who should have called him to serious task
for those various gross and indefensible mistakes and misrepresenta-
tions beginning a full two decades ago? Yet, then as now, to admit
that the life’s work of the widely recognized, heroic “Einstein” of
your own professional field has more gaseous holes in it than a
twenty-pound Swiss cheese, too, could not be easy, from any psycho-
logical perspective.
Indeed, there is the very real risk that ardent admirers of Wilber
will read about the problems with his work and character cataloged
herein, find some convoluted rationalization to insist that those inar-
guable issues “can’t be so,” and proceed to dismiss the rest of the
equally documented (alleged) problems with the other forty or so
“enlightened” individuals covered in these chapters, as being equally
“unlikely.” Many of those fans have already done as much with Adi
Da and Cohen, after all, having been reassured by Wilber that those
are two of the “greatest sages” on the face of the Earth.
[M]ost men, including those at ease with problems of the

greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and
most obvious [reported] truth if it be such as would oblige
NORMAN EINSTEIN 221
them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have de-

lighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly
taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread,
into the fabric of their lives.
—Leo Tolstoy
We all get fooled for short periods of time, or even for years.
Hell, for two months after I first read Wilber, I too bought into the
idea that he was an “Einstein.” (Ah, “to be that young again.”) But to
get fooled for the rest of one’s life, investing huge amounts of emo-
tional energy into maintaining that fiction, is in no way a good thing.
And to further base one’s professional standing on that, in a visibly
public commitment which one cannot back out of without invaliding
the bulk of one’s own life’s work, is when things become, as Wilber
would say, “problematic.”
Wilber and his supporters in the Integral Institute may not like
[criticism such as Jeff Meyerhoff’s (2003) book, Bald Ambi-
tion], but if they are really serious about getting beyond what
is looking more and more like a [so-called] cult surrounding
Wilber, they better get used to it (Smith, 2004; italics added).
[I]t appears that Ken Wilber stands as judge, jury and execu-
tioner when it comes to the matter of who is, and who is not,
integral enough....
[H]ow integral is an institution that excludes dissenting
voices? Isn’t such an exclusion of dissent itself also evidence
for a lack of true Integralism? (Peckinpaugh, 2004).
For more on that same topic, including an openly “antagonistic

and arrogant response” from one of Wilber’s blindly loyal fans to a
respectfully stated concern, see Taylor (2003). There, Wilber’s Inte-
gral Naked website is (rightly, I believe) categorized by critics as be-
ing constituted of “a bunch of poseurs at an intellectual masturbation
party”—a group of “good ol’ boys chewin’ the fat and slingin’ back
the whiskies.”
Don Beck’s (2005) alarmingly intolerant view of the WHAT
enlightenment??! website fares no better. For there, he reportedly re-
gards the disillusioned former admirers of Cohen executing that blog
as being both “cowards” and “bottom dwellers who have nothing to
contribute.” (By contrast, the calm and cogent response given by the
custodians of that site, at the same URL, hits so many nails on the
head, so concisely, it’s inspiring.) That “insightful, second-tier value
meme” perspective naturally comes from one of the fathers of Spiral
Dynamics®, himself being another founding member of the Integral
Institute.
Of course, I myself am (thankfully) no part of the Integral Naked
“intellectual circle jerk” community—led by the “Pee-Wee Herman
of consciousness studies”—and so can neither directly confirm nor
deny the worrisome allegations made by Smith and Peckinpaugh.
Beck’s reported response above, though, could certainly be taken as
substantiating their concerns. Indeed, any frightened yet devoted dis-
ciple, baselessly convinced that he can spot psychological and spiri-
tual pathologies from a mile away, and closing ranks around his spiri-
tual hero(es), could have written a comparably hysterical diatribe with
equally minimal provocation.
Beck himself, astonishingly, “made over sixty trips to South Af-
rica, working with those who were dismantling apartheid,” and offer-
ing his spiraling, dynamic insights there (Wilber, 2001b). Makes ya
wonder.
Further, regarding tolerance for dissent, etc.: Wilber (2004a)
claims to be party to “extensive discussions and criticisms—at [the
accredited Integral University] especially—where those who know
the kw version of an integral model, definitely criticize it freely, ex-
tensively, and cogently.” (Cohen’s What Is Enlightenment? magazine,
too, has recently arranged to partner with The Graduate Institute in
Connecticut, in an accredited program of studies: www.learn.edu/
wie.htm. Disturbing, to say the least.) But recall, kw has equally in-
sisted that any “true sangha”—e.g., Da’s or Cohen’s or Trungpa’s—
would similarly allow for a “critical appraisal of its own teachings.”
So one might be justified in doubting the man’s ability to see clearly
on that point, particularly in situations where he himself is deeply
emotionally involved. How, then, could anyone take him at face value
when he claims, with equal confidence, to find free and open criticism
in his own community? (Wilber [2004a]—writing in all lower case, in
an evident over-compensation for Da’s Excessive Use of Capitaliza-
tion—has promised to soon be posting “dozens of hours of critical
debate” on the forthcoming Integral University websites. We shall
see.)
NORMAN EINSTEIN 223
Conversely, Wilber has failed to see even obvious extreme al-

leged “cultic” behaviors in the communities of other admired sages in
which he has participated. Do you imagine, then, that he would be
able to recognize the same characteristics in his own surroundings,
were he to slip further into functioning as the “cultic hero”? (A pandit
can thus function just as well as a spiritual guru can, as numerous
psychotherapy and political “cults” have long proved. As Albert Ein-
stein himself expressed [1950] the latter: “One strength of the com-
munist system ... is that it has some of the characteristics of a religion
and inspires the emotions of a religion.”)
I actually know of at least two “cult-aware” individuals (not in-
cluding David Lane) who have personally met with Wilber in recent
years. Both tried to get him to understand the dangers involved in the
guru-disciple relationship, particularly when it is enacted under
“crazy wisdom” or “Rude Boy” scenarios.
The result? Not even a dent in that thick, half-centuried chrome
dome.
So it’s not as though Wilber hasn’t been told, in that regard.
Rather, there are simply myriad topics where the man just doesn’t get
it, no matter how cogently you try to “dialog” with him. I would not
personally imagine, then, that the situation could be so different when
it comes to kw’s “Theory of Everything” and the Integral Institute
itself, in spite of his ardent protests to the contrary. For, he surely will
have viewed the aforementioned guru-disciple relationship conversa-
tions as being a “dialog,” too, comparable to the purported “free, ex-
tensive and cogent” discussions regarding his integral model. And
yet, he evidently learned nothing from them, even when he should
have been a student, not a confident teacher, to others possessing a far
greater understanding of the relevant issues than he himself has ever
had.
A “question and answer” session where one person “has all the
answers,” is in no way a “dialog.” And yet, judging from the real-life
examples which Wilber himself (2004) explicitly gives, he clearly
thinks it is. For there, kw does over 80% of the talking, and is never
wrong, in patiently explaining to his (fairly silent) conversational
partner how the latter has failed to understand his integral notions.
So, to summarize this section: Wilber apparently sees “critical
appraisal” where there is none. He has also shown himself to be blind
to extreme alleged “cultic” behaviors and abuses, confidently assert-
ing that those do not exist even in situations where others have
claimed that they clearly do. (From that blinkered perspective, various
communities could only have “become very problematic” at some
point after his endorsement of them, rather than being so all along.
That is, at the time of his approval, everything must have been “ex-
actly as he claimed.” Just so.) Further, he evidently mistakes the
sound of his own voice for a meaningful exchange of ideas with oth-
ers.
“Dialog” like that, the world does not need more of.
Or, as Robert Carroll (2003) noted with regard to the “Q & A”
format of Wilber’s earlier (1996) A Brief History of Everything:
This is not dialog as Plato, Galileo, Berkeley, or Hume used

dialog: to put forth opposing viewpoints and criticize them.
Wilber is only interested in putting forth his own viewpoint.
***
Interestingly, Michael Murphy, Deepak Chopra, Andrew Cohen,

Richard Baker and Saniel Bonder are all founding members of
Wilber’s Integral Institute (2004).
Bonder co-edited Da’s Garbage and the Goddess, and co-wrote
the preface for that same book, wherein the evidently believed-by-
him claims of “miraculous coronas” and the like are explicitly given.
The other co-writer of that text, Terry Patten, is now co-director of
Integral University’s Integral Practice Center (Integral, 2005). So pre-
sumably it’s just a matter of time until Wilber, too, starts manifesting
coronas that aren’t there, with those being “fully confirmed” by the
members in good standing of his integral community.
And that collection of “wise men and sages,” with Wilber’s help
as their respected and spiritually evolved nondual leader, is going to
“save the integral world,” via cogent dialog or otherwise?
God help us.
And yet, to hear Wilber himself (2004) tell it, that same envi-
ronment is not only the picture of psychological health, but a veritable
gathering of independently thinking and academically brilliant indi-
viduals:
[T]ake a look at the scholars who are the hosts and cohosts of
[Integral University]. Do you really think these people are “yes
NORMAN EINSTEIN 225
men”? The only way that criticism will work is if you can
demonstrate that hundreds of the finest scholars in the world
are obsequious ass kissers. Ah, gimme me [sic] a break.
Again with the ass fixation....

But “finest scholars in the world”? Hundreds of them?
Where??
(Granted, there are many names among the nearly two hundred
founding members of the Integral Institute and its affiliated Integral
University which I do not recognize. Of those which I do, however....)
The spine-lengthening (i.e., Ramakrishna-believing) Murphy?
The ayurvedic Chopra? (See Wheeler [1997]; van Biema [1996];
Ross [2005b].) The near-messianic Cohen? The “seduced-by-
luscious-blondes,” Disneyland-visiting Baker?
Or, speaking of “fine scholars,” how about Joe Firmage, the
software expert and UFO aficionado (Klass [2000]; Phipps [2001])
who first endowed the nonprofit Integral Institute in 1997, to the tune
of one million dollars (Integral, 2004)? Or the astral-voyaging, re-
mote-viewing Marilyn Schlitz (Atwood [2003]; Gorski [2001])? Or
Larry Dossey, wishful-thinking promoter of faith-based healing and
misapplied “quantum nonlocality” in medicine?
Yes, all are founding members of the Integral Institute, whose
belief systems relate directly to their participation in that forum. In-
deed, all but the software entrepreneur Firmage have their areas of
“professional expertise” overlapping significantly with their roles in
the integral community.
Or how about Gary Schwartz, the University of Arizona re-
searcher who genuinely believes that the claimed mediums he has
tested are talking to the dead? That is, he takes them as genuine psy-
chics rather than as persons who, it has been reasonably suggested,
could much more likely simply be doing “twenty questions”-like
“cold reading,” or having other sources of bias seep into the results.
(See Carroll [2004a]; Wiseman and O’Keeffe [2001]; Randi [2001],
[2001a], [2001b]; and Schwartz [2001], for his response to Randi.)
Also from Schwartz’s (2002) Afterlife Experiments book—with
a foreword by Deepak Chopra—detailing the same research:
[What] I affectionately call spirit-assisted medicine ... could

also be true. As health care providers become better skilled at
communication with the other side, medical practices could be

enhanced through guidance and assistance from departed phy-
sicians and therapists.
And why not? But wait, there’s (2002) more:
In addition to instructing jurors not to discuss the trial with

friends or relatives, will judges [in the future] advise juries not
to confer with deceased friends and relatives about the case?
Or might they, on the contrary, insist that jurors attempt to
communicate and seek advice from the departed?....
A victim’s afterlife testimony could be a critical factor in
determining the conviction or acquittal of the defendant....
Doctors in the future will need to seriously entertain the
possibility that their patients do not show up for their sessions
alone. What if a therapist’s client is bringing along one or
more deceased persons to his sessions?
Yes, “What if?” (Is it not frightening to consider that one’s inno-
cence or health could someday be in the hands of people like these—
who make Shirley MacLaine look level-headed by comparison—and
their “verified, genuine mediums”?)
Rather more reasonably, the skeptical Dr. Ray Hyman (2003)
has given his evaluation of Schwartz’s startlingly poor experimental
design and interpretation of data in his testing of alleged mediums:
Probably no other extended program in psychical research de-

viates so much from accepted norms of scientific methodology
as this one does.
“Finest scholars.” Fit and able to “cogently” criticize Wilber’s

own “brilliant” work—in which they have found precisely none of the
absolutely glaring issues cataloged herein.
Schwartz has also done much comparable “living energy,” feed-
back-related theorizing—e.g., (1999) with Russek. That wishful
thinking includes facile defenses of crystal healing (see Randi
[2001b] for contra), out-of-the-body experiences and homeopathy.
(Against homeopathy, see Park [1997]; Stevens [2001]; Jarvis [1994];
and Randi [2001d], [2002a], [2002b], [2003b], [2003c], [2003d].) All
of those aspects of “alternative medicine,” however, have failed to
NORMAN EINSTEIN 227
show their purported effects in numerous properly controlled studies,

in spite of Schwartz’s (1999) “theorizing” as to why they “should”
work, e.g., in terms of “systemic memory”:
Water has been around a long time, and water, like everything
else, accumulates history to various degrees. Virgin water can
be created in the laboratory, and it will not have the history of
water that has been around for millions of years. Virgin water,
though pure, may be lacking the “soul” of water that has been
around a long time. Does the age of water influence the level
of life expressed through it? Maybe. It is worth remembering
that physical life, as we know it, requires water.
Yes, “worth remembering.” Yet, of Schwartz’s “virgin water”

book, Marc Berard (2001), like Hyman after him, opined:
[I]t seems that [Schwartz] is not all that familiar with some of
the elementary concepts and practices of proper research, and
he shows a shocking lack of understanding about basics out-
side his field.
“Finest scholars! Hundreds of ‘em! You can’t hardly swing a

dead cat for hitting one it’s so ass-kissing academically integral in
here, I’m telling you!! Step right up!!! Right inside this tent!!!!”
Anyway, Dr. Schwartz’s level of attention to detail overall seems
to rival Wilber’s. Or perhaps my local library and bookstore have
simply failed to stock the texts by “Susan Blakemore,” “Houston
Smith” and “Fritz Capra,” to which he so approvingly refers.
And how does the professional work of Schwartz and his col-
leagues relate to Wilber’s, not merely for Schwartz being a founding
member of the Institute’s Integral Medicine department, but beyond?
Wilber himself (2003) explains:
The major theorists addressed [in my “comprehensive theory

of subtle energies”] include Rupert Sheldrake, Michael Mur-
phy, William Tiller ... Deepak Chopra, Hiroshi Motoyama,
Marilyn Schlitz, Larry Dossey, and Gary Schwartz, among
others. I am a great fan of all of those theorists, and much of
this integral theory has been developed over the years in dis-
cussion with many of them.
Earlier in that very same “Excerpt G” reference is where Wilber

most recently trashes David Bohm for allegedly purveying “simplistic
notions” and “epicycles” in his Nobel-caliber reformulation of quan-
tum theory.
For Sheldrake’s work, see Randi (2003a), (2004); also Marks
and Colwell (2000), and Robert Baker (2000). William Tiller—who
wrote the preface for Itzhak Bentov’s (1977) Stalking the Wild Pen-
dulum—fares no better in the skeptical analysis; cf. Randi (2003e).
The mystical Bentov himself was instrumental in introducing the
spoon-bending Uri Geller to Andreija Puharich, and thus to Russell
Targ and Harold Putoff—the “Laurel and Hardy of Psi,” in Randi’s
(1980) reckoning—back in the ’70s (Sannella, 2001).
On Geller, see Randi (2000a), (2000b), (2001c), (2002), (2004a);
also Knight (2004).
Ironically, Wilber’s relatively error-free (1999a) The Marriage
of Sense and Soul, on the integration of science and meditation-based
religion, received a complimentary review (Minerd, 2000) in Skepti-
cal Inquirer. Indeed, Minerd closed his evaluation with the comment
that Wilber’s writing was “refreshingly free of the pontifications,
careless generalizations, and self-admiration indulged in by other
writers.” (Uh ... that statement may have been true of that one book,
but it is certainly not applicable to large chunks of the man’s work
before or since then. Indeed, in the “Further Reading” section of even
that specific text, Wilber suggests both his [1996] A Brief History of
Everything and his [1998] The Eye of Spirit as being worthy of explo-
ration. The former contains his misunderstandings of basic evolution
and of the Pythagorean theorem; the latter presents the second of his
studied misrepresentations of David Bohm’s work. “Careless” does
not begin to describe. And “self-admiration” and “pontification”? Let
me count the rosaries!) Minerd also opined that “devotees of Wilber
... would be a group of people that skeptics could, if not quite em-
brace, at least live alongside very easily.”
Ach, if he only knew. Yet, the likes of Wilber and Schwartz are,
in all seriousness, the best that mysticism-influenced consciousness
studies has to offer, to argue for its validity. (Amazingly, although
Wilber elsewhere completely ignores the skeptical objections to the
work of many of his “fine scholars,” he actually quotes approvingly
from Martin Gardner, regarding the Anthropic Principle, in his Mar-
riage of Sense and Soul. So, contrary to what one might reasonably
NORMAN EINSTEIN 229
assume from the rest of his work, he does at least realize that the
skeptical position exists, even if entirely disrespecting it in practice.)
Thankfully, Minerd did note disapprovingly that Wilber “implic-
itly accepts the reality of mystical experiences, and it is sufficient for
him that his scientific mystics test their internal experiences against
nothing more than each other’s internal experiences. How this would
eliminate group bias or error is not discussed.” I have yet to find that
obvious and devastating point addressed by Wilber himself anywhere
in his own writings, before or since that review.
For, consider Aurobindo’s or Maharshi’s internal visionary ex-
periences. As we have seen, both of those mystics were community-
verified as being “authentic” and, indeed, as being among the very
best in the world. (They are Wilber’s “favorites” for a reason, after
all.) And yet, in the most reasonable and generous interpretation, and
in my own opinion, neither of them could distinguish between their
own fantasies and “real” spiritual experiences. Had they, and others
like them, been from the same spiritual tradition, those fantasies
would surely have largely conformed to what they had been com-
monly taught they should experience in meditation. That, however,
would make them no more real, even though being verified by each
other and by the entire community.
Interestingly, comparably flawed arguments as Wilber’s, in favor
of the “scientific” nature of meditation-based religion, were put forth
by Itzhak Bentov in the 1970s:
I am lucky to have met several people whose [meditative] ex-

periences have been similar to mine, so that I have been able to
compare my information with theirs. To my great surprise, our
experiences agreed not only in general, but also in many unex-
pected details. This knowledge appears, therefore, to be consis-
tent and reproducible.
(Wilber [1982] quotes from other published aspects of Bentov’s

work. It is therefore likely that he was aware of the earlier [1977]
book from which the above quote is drawn. Or, if he wasn’t, as the
“foremost theoretician in transpersonal psychology” he certainly
should have been.)
Yet, Richard Feynman (1989) more reasonably noted:
[T]he imagination that things are real does not represent true
reality. If you see golden globes, or something, several times,
and they talk to you during your hallucination and tell you they
are another intelligence, it doesn’t mean they’re another intel-
ligence; it just means that you have had this particular halluci-
nation.
Further, a shared delusion, based on a common self-fulfilling ex-

pectation of experiencing “talking golden globes” or otherwise, is
obviously no more real than is a hallucination confined to a single
individual.
Wilber’s vaunted “community verification,” in practice within
any closed environment, actually amounts to little more than an ap-
peal to popularity and conformity. For, you can only be a “success”
within those walls by seeing what the guru-figure and his “more spiri-
tually advanced” (than you) disciples tell you that you should be
glimpsing. Even the external experience of loyal followers seeing
“miraculous coronas” and the like, while skeptics were reportedly
demoted for not seeing/imagining the same, has proved exactly that.
Sound objective research is not relevant to the true believer. In

place of evidence and scientific validity, things are said to
work ... by using social pressures to persuade people that they
did work; i.e., by gradually interfering with the individual’s
ability to evaluate information (Penny, 1993).
If the same purported sages were actually able to prove their

claimed abilities to see auras, do verifiable astral remote-viewing or
manifest objective coronas, for example, in a properly controlled en-
vironment, one might have some basis for confidence in the reality of
their other internal experiences, even if those subtler experiences
were not otherwise scientifically testable. (There is, after all, no a
priori reason why everything should be “scientifically testable,” in
the physical laboratory or otherwise, in order to be “real.”) But short
of that, Wilber’s hope that any amount of community verification
might sort fact from fiction in mystical claims falls flat on its face.
For, there are clearly no controls whatsoever in place to guard against
meditators simply experiencing what they expect to experience, and
then viewing that as a confirmation of the truth of the metaphysical
theory previously taught to them.
NORMAN EINSTEIN 231
Without a satisfactory demonstration of the reality of such spiri-

tual experiences, integral “Theories of Everything” might as well be
theories of leprechauns, unicorns and Santa Claus. That is, one strug-
gles to find more certain truth-value in them than in, say, L. Ron Hub-
bard’s “science fiction religion,” or Tolkien’s Middle Earth. Impres-
sive monuments to human imagination, to be sure; but hardly worth
devoting a lifetime to creating, much less deserving of being taken
seriously as mirrors of “authentic spirituality.” That is so, particularly
when the authors of the same wide-ranging integral ideas can be con-
clusively shown to have misunderstood and misrepresented so many
of the established fields on which they base their “cutting edge” theo-
ries. Indeed, that would be a huge problem even were it not for the
fact that the transpersonal data set, which they are creating their theo-
ries to explain, could hardly be more uncertain, i.e., as to which ele-
ments of it (if any) are valid, and which are spurious. Thus, even
when reasoning clearly from that bad data, they end up effectively
producing airtight arguments to prove how many integral angels can
dance on the head of a pin, etc.—without having first bothered to
properly ascertain whether such angels, and their auras and subtle
energies, even exist.
The community verification of truth in the hard sciences, too, is
far from perfect—witness the decades of deafening silence given to
Bohm’s exemplary work, in a “freezing out” which has only recently
begun to thaw. But relative to the nonsense which gets passed off as
being “real” in terms of spiritual perceptions, there is truly no com-
parison. Indeed, even if meditation measurably advances one through
known stages of psychological development (Wilber [1998], [2000d];
Alexander and Langer [1990]), there is no necessary parapsychologi-
cal claim to that. Thus, it does nothing to support the idea that mysti-
cal experiences are “real.”
In any case, one cannot help but further wonder: Might Wilber’s
own student, Mr. Brad Reynolds (2004), also be one of the aforemen-
tioned “finest scholars”? Or does he still have too much to learn from
“the master”? Whether or not, his hagiographic take on kw’s pur-
ported brilliance is nothing if not blatant “randy toady ass kissing.”
Yet, the compassionate “incarnation of Manjushri” has surely not
seen the latter obvious point on his own—meaning that he would not
likely recognize the same dynamic in any of its more subtle presenta-
tions by other potential “yes men.” Nor, evidently, has Wilber—the
“Macho, Macho Man of consciousness studies”—seen the way in

which his own lips have been tightly suctioned onto Da’s and
Cohen’s respective posteriors, obviously being unable to think clearly
for his own excitement in that compromising position.
Well. Regardless, if I could find all of these documented prob-
lems with kw’s work and character in a mere several hundred hours
of research, why could “hundreds of the finest scholars in the world”
not have done radically better, with their own existing, professional
expertise? Why is it that, when it comes to attempted criticisms of
Wilber’s work, they consistently “strain at the gnat and swallow the
elephant”? Are they unconsciously holding back, as “yes men,” so as
to not offend “one of the thousand greatest Zen realizers of all time,”
and a “genius” to boot? Or do they really not know any better than to
swallow whole “the emperor’s new theories”?
Or is it, perhaps, both?
***
We have seen far too much tolerance given toward the likes of Da,
Cohen and Trungpa, by Wilber and those so unfortunate as to take his
foolish ideas on the subject of gurus and disciples seriously. In the
face of all that, one begins to suspect that no small amount of the
gushing and ejaculating that goes on with regard to “greatest Realiz-
ers,” etc., might likely derive from the related hope that, the more one
celebrates one’s own heroes, the more others may celebrate you as
their hero in the same unquestioning and hyperbolic manner. That is,
such behavior would be part of Wilber’s admitted goal of having
“everybody—specifically, Da and his followers, here—love him.”
Yet ironically, such chronic, indiscriminate exaggeration could
only have exactly the opposite effect. For, its “crying/praising wolf”
nature effectively reduces any merely lukewarm or balanced praise
from kw, to the status of a relative insult. It also makes it impossible
to know what in his writings deserves to be taken seriously, and what
should rather be regarded as mere unfounded hyperbole, not worthy
of serious analysis. (His excessively flattering evaluations of female
attractiveness suffer from the same problem. And thereby do “7’s”
and “8’s” become “10’s” in the Wilberian system of mathematics.)
Wilber’s posting of Reynolds’ (2004) “randy toadying” on the
home page of his own website, comparable to his own childish atti-
NORMAN EINSTEIN 233
tude with regard to Adi Da, certainly does nothing to dispel the above
“tit for tat” suspicions: “See? This is how you should treat me.”
Or as Kate Strelley (1987) noted after having left Rajneesh’s
Poona ashram to be feted as a celebrity at a relatively minor center in
England:
[W]hat I really got off on was the fact that I was now being
treated in the way I would treat Sheela.
One could substitute the name of any guru-figure or foolish pan-

dit for the one-time respected administrator Sheela in that, and it
would apply just as well.
Of course, in any such context, you could not then speak out
properly against even the radical shortcomings in your own one-time
heroes, as that would then license your followers to do the same to
you. That is, the only way to “teach” others how to treat you with
proper respect would be to continue to speak publicly with exagger-
ated regard for the idols. That must continue even long after it was
obvious that they were complete screw-ups, and even if one could,
when pressed, admit to the latter when safe from the public eye.
Thus:
In private correspondence with me (and in person), Wilber has

admitted that “Da is a fuck-up” (his words, not mine) (Lane,
1996).
Of course, it may also be that Wilber is simply so desperate for

his hero Adi Da’s approval, love and attention that he will (publicly)
do everything in his power to retain that. But that would be even less
flattering than the above explanation, as an explicitly immature, de-
pendent stance.
Still, as Stephen Butterfield (1994) noted:
In the guru/disciple relationship, [the] self-conscious longing

for acceptance, regarded as a form of devotion, operates to in-
timidate the student into deference.
And then, from the deferential Wilber (1998a):

I affirm my own love and devotion to the living Sat-Guru [i.e.,

Adi Da].... I send ... a deep bow to Master Adi Da.
Wilber himself, interestingly, had elsewhere and earlier (in An-

thony, et al., 1987) mocked followers who view their spiritual leader
as being a “perfect master”:
[H]ow great the guru is; in fact, how great I must be to be

among the chosen. It is an extremely narcissistic position.
Indeed it is, particularly since the difference between “perfect

master” and “greatest living Realizer” is hardly wide enough to let
slivers of light from, say, a fleeting corona, slip through. That mini-
mal difference, further, is essentially irrelevant in this context. For,
one will again obviously feel extremely special for being noticed or
chosen (e.g., to write forewords) by any “greatest” Realizer, even if
the latter is not “perfect.” “Extremely narcissistic” is thus absolutely
right, but for the integral goose as well as for the gander.
People look to gurus as a way to get self acceptance. If they

can get acceptance from the guru, then of course they must be
okay. The more powerful and magical and mystical the guru is,
the more valuable his/her acceptance is. Therefore, the ten-
dency is to elevate the guru to superhuman mythical god-man
status (Radzik, 2005).
Another former follower of Da Fuck-Up expressed his own per-

spective (in Bob, 2000) with comparable insight:
Hell, saying he’s realized at all may be just a way to make my-
self seem less of a sucker for biting, and to avoid dissing peo-
ple I respect who are still into him.
Notwithstanding all that, as late as 1998 Wilber was still publicly

defending Adi Da, even after having reportedly given the “fuck-up”
evaluation in private at least two years earlier. Most likely, what he
means is that Da is a “fuck-up” along moral lines or the like, but is
still the “greatest living Realizer” along spiritual lines of develop-
ment. As little chance as there is of the latter idea being true, it would
NORMAN EINSTEIN 235
at least partially avoid charges of hypocrisy against Wilber, for saying

one thing publicly but another privately.
Of course, that would still not settle the question as to how “sur-
rendering completely,” even in a “mature” way, to an admitted “prob-
lematic [i.e., Jonestown-like], damn fool, fuck-up” (kw’s words, all),
could possibly be a good idea. And note again that all of those evalua-
tions were given by Wilber himself well prior to his “deep, devo-
tional bow” to the Master, above. Such behaviors could only have a
psychological, never merely a “logical,” basis and explanation.
If speaking out against decades of such lingering stupor pre-
sented as wisdom requires us to be “rude,” so be it. After all, to do
less than that would make us guilty of exhibiting “idiot compassion.”
And if there is one thing we do not want to be accused of, it would
have to be that. Especially since the alternative is to be allowed to
express one’s “Rude Boy” side, for the “benefit of all sentient be-
ings.”
People’s lives and mental health are at stake in all this. “Fucking
up” is not an option.
***
After all that, one is reminded of Sokal and Bricmont’s (1998) obser-
vation, in their discussion of the recent, bumbling forays of postmod-
ernists into scientific theorizing and commentary:
[W]hen [alleged] intellectual dishonesty (or gross incompe-

tence) is discovered in one part—even a marginal part—of
someone’s writings, it is natural to want to examine more criti-
cally the rest of his or her work.
Indeed. For, as with issues of responsibility and the like, such

characteristics never confine themselves to merely one small part of a
person’s life or quasi-professional work, but rather profoundly shape
all aspects of it.
I personally am again in no position to give an informed evalua-
tion as to whether Wilber has equally garbled postmodernism, or the
various branches of psychology to which he frequently refers and
claims to have synthesized into a coherent spectrum, as he has done
for other fields.
Another one of the founders of Spiral Dynamics, Christopher

Cowan (www.spiraldynamics.org), however, is in such a position, at
least with regard to Wilber’s comprehension of SD. And his knowl-
edgeable position is indeed this:
[Wilber’s presentations of Spiral Dynamics] twist the theory

and contain glib over-simplifications and biases ... which re-
flect neither the nuances nor the intent of this theory. There is
frequent confusion of values with Value Systems. He also
seems to have trouble differentiating the levels of psychologi-
cal existence from personality traits ... and grossly misunder-
stands and overplays the “tier” notion....
Much of the material demonstrates a very limited grasp of
the underlying theory ... he’s wrong far more often than there’s
any excuse for. Thus, the supposed SD foundation on which he
builds so many arguments is fundamentally, fatally flawed....
[Wilber] is putting out impressive-sounding junk and
nonsense that must be undone if the integrity of the model is to
be protected. There’s no excuse for it (Cowan, 2005).
Because Wilber tries to apply but doesn’t actually understand

Gravesian theory, he confuses the levels/colors like a novice.
He doesn’t know Green from Orange or Yellow. Thus, the
elaborate arguments he lays out are constructed on quick-
sand.... And because he sounds authoritative, newcomers to SD
will believe they’re getting a valid overview of Graves/SD
from Boomeritis (Cowan, 2002).
We would, though, have expected no less than all that from

Wilber. At least, based on what we’ve seen so far. (The man’s sim-
plistic fixation on an imaginary “mean Green meme” fares no better
in the light of a proper understanding of SD, as Cowan and his asso-
ciates have pointed out, in his [2005a] and elsewhere.)
The fact that Wilber’s transpersonal and integral “believer” peers
have long endorsed his work unfortunately means nothing. For, they
have equally failed to take him to task for any of the gross errors
documented herein, evidently having been utterly snowed by his im-
perial presentation.
As one amazon.com reviewer of Wilber’s books then wondered
out loud:
NORMAN EINSTEIN 237
People like von Daniken [re: UFOs] and Velikovsky say a lot
of things that seem quite plausible to the layman, but scientists
with specialized knowledge in the relevant fields treat them as
a joke. Is Wilber the philosophical equivalent of such figures?
Interesting questions, all. For, to coin a phrase, “A Wilber’s

knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Significantly, following his (1998) misrepresentations of Bohm’s
work, and even while utterly failing to respond to Lane’s (1996) dev-
astating deconstruction of his foibles, Wilber himself expressed the
following confident opinion:
Until this [“straw man,” in kw’s case] critique is even vaguely

answered, I believe we must consider Bohm’s theory to be re-
futed.
By parity of argument, then, until Wilber has even vaguely an-

swered this critique....
***
I have tried to be, in my writing, very critical, very discrimi-

nating, very sharp, very intense....
Every now and then you simply get tired of having to
prove every sentence you utter. I think I’ve earned the right—
after a dozen books—to simply suggest a world [e.g., in a
novel] without having to prove it! (Wilber, in [Visser, 1995]).
If Wilber’s confident misstatement of high-school-level ideas in evo-

lution and geometry were the only problem with his “suggested”
worldview, one might charitably overlook that.
If his (and his friends’) provably false insistence that he has
never been “believably criticized” for misrepresenting anyone else’s
work were the only problem, one might cut the man some slack.
If his gross and consistent “straw man” misrepresentations of the
ideas of his primary competitor, the real genius David Bohm, were
the only problem....
If his admitted “arrogant asshole” attitude, enforced from a posi-
tion as an allegedly unparalleled spiritual “genius,” were the only
problem....
If his excoriating of New Agers for purportedly narcissistic and

regressive/magical beliefs which he himself is every bit as guilty of
holding were the only problem....
If his notion that he has been consistently “critical” and “dis-
criminating” in his writings, or the implication that he has “prove[d]
every sentence” therein (!), were the only problem....
If his unsupportable belief that he is cleaning up more of a mess
than he is making were the only problem....
If his apparent silence in the face of his friends’ alleged protec-
tive/suppressive behaviors were the only problem....
If the increasingly fawning view of his followers toward him
(and his seeming approval of that) were the only problem....
If his oracular, “personal authority” evaluations of “sages”
whom he has never met, on the mere basis of their extant writings,
were the only problem....
If his decades-long disregard for the difficulties with the guru-
disciple relationship and its associated “problematic” behaviors were
the only problem....
If the often-violent imagery in his characterizations of the alleg-
edly positive aspects of reported brutal spiritual discipline at the
hands of one or another guru-figure (which he himself has never un-
dergone to any meaningful degree) were the only problem....
If his indefensible endorsements of Adi Da in particular over a
two-decade-plus period were the only problem....
Sadly, however, none of those are even close to being the “only
problem” with the clothes on the (integral naked) “emperor of con-
sciousness studies.” (The means of gaining increased access to that
reclusive but enlightened, great spiritual being, are described at Inte-
gral [2004a]. All it costs is a mere $10,000 for your membership in
“The President’s Circle.” Join today.) Indeed, those dozen-plus issues
cast severe shadows across Wilber’s entire professional work, notable
aspects of which would again literally earn him failing grades even at
a high school level. If he and his admirers (including the esteemed,
and steaming, Dr. Beck) really want to “deal with the Truth no matter
what the consequences,” roasting each others’ asses in whatever
“Rude Boy” or macho ways, they can start with that.
For, you see, Ken Wilber is not a genius.
Ken Wilber is not a “bodhisattva pandit.”
Ken Wilber is not “the world’s foremost philosopher.”
NORMAN EINSTEIN 239
Ken Wilber is not even a “cogent and penetrating voice.”

Ken Wilber is simply a tall building in a small, prairie town—a
big, overfed goldfish in a small, isolated bowl; a nasty, condescend-
ing, narcissistic ninny bunny in the blight-ridden garden of con-
sciousness studies.
Incidentally, it was only Wilber’s (2003) specific gross misrep-
resentation of Bohm’s ideas, discovered by me on a July weekend
with nothing better to do than poke through his sprawling website,
that got me started on looking in detail for other problems with his
work. Had he known enough to keep his careless generalizing, self-
admiration and pontification to himself on those points, I would never
have begun writing the Appendix for this book, and then the present
chapter. I would even have let his equal misrepresentations of Bohm’s
work in his (1998) Eye of Spirit slide, were it not for his continuing,
unprovoked, nasty mistreatment of that late, truly great scientist, and
subsequent proud and loud gloating at purportedly having “superior”
ideas.
Indeed, when I began going through those online postings, I had
already recovered sufficiently from my previous reading of Wilber’s
other insulting misrepresentations of Bohm to once again tentatively
take him seriously. I did not go into that adversarially, in spite of the
fact that Wilber, in the first edition of the above (1998) book, igno-
rantly dismissed Bohm’s implicate and explicate order-related ideas
as being “extremely confused notions.” Proper research, however,
easily discloses that, on every point where Bohm and Wilber dis-
agree, it is kw who is “extremely confused,” not Bohm.
There is a lesson in there somewhere. But not an easy one to
learn, for the “Icarus of consciousness studies.”
We are all allowed our honest mistakes, after all, without being
publicly humiliated for them. But when one stoops to using those
very same gross errors as a means of ostensibly proving, from the
perspective of alleged genius, that others of far greater intelligence
and insight are guilty of incompetence in purveying “simplistic no-
tions” and “bad physics,” while one simultaneously and utterly inde-
fensibly encourages others to follow one’s own “good advice” and
“surrender completely” to one or another “holy fool,” something’s
gotta give.
For my own part, I have nothing at all against even the most “ar-
rogant assholes” in this world—I am nearly one myself, after all—
provided simply that, in behaving as over-the-top know-it-alls, they

manage to consistently get it right (cf. Adams, 2004). Indeed, I per-
sonally consider humility in the face of pervasive human ignorance to
be in no way a good thing—although humility in the face of truth, and
the willingness to retrace one’s steps at any point should they turn out
to be misled, is obviously quite another matter.
Likewise, I have nothing but admiration for the real geniuses in
this world, who have gotten their prestige honestly. But to get the
perks of fame and fortune via misrepresentation, mountainous hyper-
bole and (alleged) suppression of dissent, within an environment
where, if one hopes to fit in, one must see things that aren’t even there
(e.g., coronas, unparalleled genius, etc.), is truly pathetic. Yet, still not
half as abysmal as the following allegation, posted anonymously on
Wilber’s own Integral Naked forum:
[I visited] Ken’s house with a group of students and [was] sur-

prised by his pantomimed masturbation and his laughing but
quite frequent requests for blowjobs from the audience.
That’s not an integral philosophy, it’s an adolescent cry for help.

Regardless, who within the integral community of the “Einstein
of masturbation” could even refuse to group-laugh at his sad attempts
at humor, much less deeply question his “genius” and life’s work, and
still remain a member in good standing there? When even a mini-
mally thorough analysis finds not merely superficial, “fixable” errors
in that, but rampant, gross misunderstandings and inconsistencies, to
the point where one cannot afford to take even the simplest of his
claims “on faith”—what to do? Who would even want to be a mem-
ber of such a community, knowing how much is hopelessly wrong
with the professional work of even its “brightest lights” and “finest
scholars”?
After all that, to go through life as such an arrogant know-it-all
as Wilber has been, dangerously fucking up on the simplest things
while being completely unaware of his own cluelessness in that re-
gard, and eagerly lapping up the feting which is apparently “no more
than his due” ... that is worthy of respect and admiration, nada.
Or, to put it another way: You wanna play “Rude Boy”? Fine:
This is how it’s done. (And again, for those admirers of kw who
might take offense, feeling that any of this has been too harsh, or find-
NORMAN EINSTEIN 241
ing their own emperor-centered worldview threatened by it: “The

greater the offense, the bigger the ego.”) Except that here, in contrast
to Wilber’s own bungling “straw man” execution, all that is required
in order to cut others down to a very small and inadequate size is to
present their detailed and directly quoted work in the harsh light of
clearly reasoned and properly researched day.
And, as Wilber’s own innuendo-laced Integral Naked website
would surely be the first to note, such size does matter.
Or, to put it another way: Don’t start something that you’re not
prepared to finish ... Big Boy.
Note further: Wilber’s misrepresentations of basic evolutionary
theory were/are executed in a field in which he is actually bachelor-
degreed, having taken an undergraduate double major in biology and
chemistry (Wilber, 1991). (His brutal and inexcusable mistakes in
Bohmian physics, however, appear to be self-taught.) Evidently, then,
those gross errors do not arise simply from his subsequent attempts at
being a John Stuart Mill-like polymath. For, his training in biochem-
istry would surely have covered basic Darwinian evolution. And
given his talent for messing up confidently on undergraduate—nay,
high school—level ideas, even in such areas where he has received
formal training and testing, and done postgraduate work, it is not
likely that his equal screw-ups in myriad other “erroneous zones” can
be blamed simply on him “trying to know too much.”
And that penchant for confident bumbling, demonstrated equally
in guru-related, life-mangling contexts as in relatively ivory-towered
ones, is of course the real difficulty with “the Strange Case of Ken
Wilber.”
The Cohen-defending Don Beck (2005) charitably finds an “ab-
sence of cynicism” in Wilber. What he is really seeing there however,
I think, is an utter lack of discrimination and an astonishing inatten-
tion to detail on kw’s part. Also, a dangerous immaturity when it
comes to guru-related matters. Plus, the documented willingness of
Wilber to close his eyes to reality, and conversely “make things up
out of thin air” to suit his preferred theses. (Cf. his misrepresentations
of basic evolution, of Bohm’s work, and probably of Aurobindo’s and
Jung’s ideas as well.)
That foolish combination easily accommodates Wilber’s wish to
include (and be loved by) everyone—except level-headed skeptics, of
which there are precisely none among his founding members. It is
true that Dossey, Schwartz and Sheldrake are all advisors/associates

of the Skeptical Investigations group—www.skepticalinvestigations
.org. So too is Brian Josephson (see Randi [2003d], [2003f]). And that
organization does ostensibly aim to “promote genuine skepticism.” It
does not, however, in my opinion, succeed. Not even close. Rather,
the consistently weak caliber of argument there is exactly as one
would expect from such a team of thinkers.
Correspondingly, Wilber’s integral theories have him willingly
“finding room” for nearly every half-baked, inadequately tested, un-
substantiated claim made by his “finest scholars.” (Cf. afterlife ex-
periments, subtle energies, chakras, morphogenic fields, alternative
medicine, etc.)
As a quasi-academic pursuit, one’s embracing of the work of
Schwartz and Sheldrake, for example, may do no worse than make
one a laughingstock. Where the “guru game” and alternative medicine
are concerned, however, the same bald lack of even rudimentarily
informed skepticism can be, quite literally, fatal. (Somebody get that
man a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer. Quick, before it’s too late.)
And unlike so much of Wilber’s work, that’s no exaggeration.
***
Some of Sai Baba’s or Adi Da’s claimed miracles might (for purposes
of argument) have been genuine. Even “astral moon cannibal slaves”
could exist in some system of logic or metaphysics, however unlikely
that prospect may be.
Likewise, one cannot easily prove that there are no Barbie®
dolls on the moon. For, however thoroughly one might have searched
and come up empty, there could always be places one has missed,
where the dolls and “white crows” might be hiding.
Unlike those issues, however, there is no room for debate or in-
terpretation in the fact that claims about half-wings having “no adap-
tive value whatsoever,” or that “absolutely nobody” believes the neo-
Darwinian explanation of evolution anymore, or that David Bohm’s
work is full of “simplistic notions” and “epicycles,” are all stunningly
wrong. Further, they are the products of no mere (relatively excus-
able) hallucination or brain-chemistry imbalance. Rather, they are the
evident result of an inexcusable failure to do even minimally adequate
research before pontificating all over the brand new carpet.
NORMAN EINSTEIN 243
Correspondingly, as we have seen abundantly by now—and as I

myself again discovered only in the process of researching and writ-
ing this—Wilber’s own work is absurdly overrated. Indeed, it is so in
direct proportion to his own inarguable penchant for hyperbole, gross
misrepresentation, and embarrassing misunderstandings of high-
school-level ideas. And, the people who thus overrate him, and whom
he in return considers to be “fine scholars” are, more often than not,
seen as nothing of the sort by established coherent thinkers.
(Note: One cannot be rated more highly than as an “Einstein” in
one’s field. And it is probably not possible to do worse in any aca-
demic pursuit than to get high-school-level ideas wrong, and still have
one’s work be published. In the contrast between those two extremes,
then, it is quite likely that kw, in his worst moments, is the most over-
rated person on the face of the Earth. Seriously.)
Wilber clearly considers himself to be an expert on all things
spiritual—not to mention (2000a) on music, movies, fashion, interior
decorating, art, media, politics, ecology, etc., etc., etc. Much worse,
he is, in my opinion, dangerously ignorant about even the most obvi-
ous dynamics of the guru-disciple relationship, and of its close
cousin, the emperor-subject relationship. If he winds up creating a
full-blown personality “cult” around himself, he will surely be the last
one to know. That is, if he manages to establish a relatively closed
environment, rife with deferential students clearly feeling “how great
I must be to be among the integral chosen people” of a great and
proud “incarnation” of one or another Buddhist god ... in a commu-
nity with no tolerance for real skepticism or demand for proof of the
woolly claims being made there by the “spiritually advanced” leaders
... and alleged attempts at suppressing information which is uncom-
plimentary to the higher-ups ... um, where to be able to “take the
heat” in getting the crap beaten out of you (verbally) is viewed as a
measure of your spiritual worth ... and, um, and an inner circle
champing at the bit to discredit even mild critics of the leaders there
as being “cowards” or worse....
Shit—they started out with such good intentions, didn’t they?
Where did it all go wrong? (By the end of the “Gurus and Prisoners”
chapter here, mapping psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s classic prison
study to the reported behaviors in ashrams and other relatively closed
thought-environments, we will have a fairly thorough answer to that
question.)
CHAPTER XXII
HELLO, DALAI!
(THE DALAI LAMA)
THE DALAI LAMA IS THE HEAD of the Gelug School of Tibetan Bud-
dhism.
The title “Dalai Lama” itself is Mongolian, meaning “Ocean of
Wisdom” or “Oceanic Wisdom Master.”
Each successive Dalai Lama, beginning with the first such leader
born in 1391, is regarded as being an incarnation of the previous one.
They are also seen as incarnations of Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva/
Buddha of Compassion.
Upon the passing of the Dalai Lama, his monks institute a

search for the Lama’s reincarnation, who is usually a small
child. Familiarity with the possessions of the previous Dalai
Lama is considered the main sign of the reincarnation. The
search for the reincarnation typically requires a few years
which results in a gap in the list of the Dalai Lamas
(WikiPedia, 2003).
The current Dalai Lama—the fourteenth in that spiritual line—

Tenzin Gyatso, was born in 1935. He has lived in Dharamsala, India,
since fleeing the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1959.
Previous incarnations in that same lineage have left their own
marks on history:
244
HELLO, DALAI! 245
[T]he Sixth Dalai Lama ... was said to have been unsuited for
his office, said to have loved many women, as well as having a
fondness for gambling and drink (Carnahan, 1995).
He did not observe even the rules of a fully ordained priest. He

drank wine habitually....
“Ignoring the sacred customs of Lamas and monks in Ti-
bet he began by bestowing care on his hair, then he took to
drinking intoxicating liquors, to gambling, and at length no girl
or married woman or good-looking person of either sex was
safe from his unbridled licentiousness” (French, 2003; italics
added).
One of the early Dalai Lamas was particularly known for his
love of women. It was common practice for households in
which a daughter had received the honor of the Dalai Lama’s
transmission through sexual union to raise a flag over their
home. It is said that a sea of flags floated in the wind over the
town (Caplan, 2002).
That Sixth, Tsangyang Gyatso, lived only a few hundred years

ago, from 1683 to 1706, in traditional, agrarian Tibet.
Given this reincarnational lineage, then, we need hardly be sur-
prised that the current Dalai Lama has himself voiced a thought or
two concerning sexual matters. For, when questioned as to which
common experiences he had most missed out on, the retirement-aged
monk “pointed at his groin and laughed: ‘I obviously missed this’”
(Ellis, 2003).
The non-violent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize also admitted
that he “would not have made a good father as he had a bad temper.”
I used to be somewhat hot-tempered and prone to fits of impa-

tience and sometimes anger. Even today, there are, of course,
times when I lose my composure. When this happens, the least
annoyance can take on undue proportions and upset me con-
siderably. I may, for example, wake up in the morning and feel
agitated for no particular reason. In this state, I find that even
what ordinarily pleases me may irritate me. Just looking at my
watch can give rise to feelings of annoyance (Lama, 1999).
In any case, other lamas from the Dalai’s own country of birth
have evidently not “missed out” on sex to the same degree, as one
Western female teacher and devotee of Tibetan Buddhism noted, in
attempting to sort through her own feelings on the subject:
How could this old lama, a realized master of the supreme Vaj-
rayana practices of Maha Mudra, choose a thirteen- or four-
teen-year-old nun from the monastery to become his sexual
consort every year? What did the lama’s wife think?....
I talked to a number of Western women who had slept
with their lamas. Some liked it—they felt special. Some felt
used and it turned them away from practice. Some said they
mothered the lama. But no one described it as a teaching; there
was nothing tantric about it. The sex was for the lama, not
them (in Kornfield, 2000).
Of course, there are two sides to every issue. Thus, Tenzin

Palmo, who herself spent years in Tibet as the only (celibate) woman
among hundreds of male monastics, after having earlier laughed off
Chögyam Trungpa’s “wandering hands” in England, noted:
Some women are very flattered at being “the consort,” in

which case they should take the consequences. And some
women only know how to relate to men in this way. I some-
times feel we women have to get away from this victim men-
tality....
A true guru, even if he felt that having a tantric relation-
ship might be beneficial for that disciple, would make the re-
quest with the understanding that it would not damage their re-
lationship if she refused. No woman should ever have to agree
on the grounds of his authority or a sense of her obedience.
The understanding should be “if she wished to, good; if not,
also good,” offering her a choice and a sense of respect. Then
that is not exploitation (in Mackenzie, 1999).
Still, much as one might agree with the need to “get away from
this victim mentality,” when a “great spiritual being” or an “infallible
god” asks you to do something, you are entitled to feel flattered, to
even enjoy it ... and still, to not be able to say, “No.” After all, it is not
possible to separate one’s “sense of obedience” and need for salvation
HELLO, DALAI! 247
out of all that, perhaps even moreso when God “asks nicely.” Webster
(1990), quite honestly, covered all of those points over a decade ago.
Only because all indications are that they have not yet properly sunk
in is it worth repeating them here.
We will return to that issue in a later chapter.
In any case, Janwillem van de Wetering (2001) related further
experiences with an eighteenth high-lama (i.e., one who had ostensi-
bly been recognized as a lama in seventeen lifetimes before):
Rimpoche [sic] had been given [a] car by his support group of
London-based backers and often took girl disciples on outings
to the seashore. A month later, when I was in Amsterdam, an
accident interfered with the temple’s routines. Rimpoche, driv-
ing home after visiting a pub in a nearby town, accompanied
by his favorite mistress, hit a tree. “Alcohol-related”....
Rimpoche drank constantly and became irritable at times.
My wife was about to whap a fly that was bothering her during
dinner and Beth [the favorite, mini-skirted mistress] screamed,
“Don’t kill a sentient being!” and got whacked over the head
by Rimpoche, who told her to keep her voice down.
The amorous lama in question, after years of hard living, died in

his early forties. A Mohawk Indian shaman, to whom that story of
debauchery was told, offered her scattered analysis:
“Yes,” she said, “I’ve heard of that happening before. It proba-

bly was the only way Rimpoche could have stayed here” (van
de Wetering, 2001).
The ridiculous idea there is, of course, that the more elevated the
soul is, the more he must ground himself into the earth to keep from
simply leaving his body and returning to the bardo realms or astral
worlds, etc.
By contrast, though in line with the teachings of his own more
conservative lineage, the current Dalai Lama obeys and enforces
well-defined limits on the “pleasures of the flesh”:
His adamant stand on sexual morality is close to that of Pope

John Paul II, a fact which his Western followers tend to find
embarrassing, and prefer to ignore. The Dalai Lama’s U.S.
publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against

homosexuality from his [1999] book Ethics for the New Mil-
lennium, for fear that they would offend American readers, and
the Dalai Lama acquiesced (French, 2003).
Expounding further on such restrictions, the Lama (in P. Harvey,

2000) has said:
Sexual misconduct for men and women consists of oral and

anal sex.... Even with your wife, using one’s mouth or other
hole is sexual misconduct.
As for when sexual intercourse takes place, if it is during the

day it is also held to be a form of misconduct (Lama, 1996).
Thankfully, some “fun” is still allowed, albeit not during day-

light hours:
To have sexual relations with a prostitute paid by you and not

by a third person does not, on the other hand, constitute im-
proper behavior (Lama, 1996).
Interesting. Yet still, speaking of “the other hand”:
Using one’s hand, that is sexual misconduct (the Dalai Lama,

in [P. Harvey, 2000]).
Masturbation ... includes emitting semen on another person, a

monk getting a novice to masturbate him, or himself mastur-
bating a sleeping novice, which could be seen to include ho-
mosexual acts. It is a lesser offence, of expiation [i.e., atone-
ment], for nuns “tormented with dissatisfaction” to slap each
other’s genitals with their palms or any object, with the slapper
“enjoying the contact” (P. Harvey, 2000).
“Nuns just wanna have fun.”

The present Dalai Lama’s views on reincarnation, too, stray
somewhat from the spiritual norm:
HELLO, DALAI! 249
There is a possibility that a scientist who is very much in-

volved his whole life [with computers], then the next life ... [he
would be reborn in a computer], same process! Then this ma-
chine which is half-human and half-machine has been reincar-
nated (Hayward and Varela, 1992).
Both of those authors, Jeremy Hayward and Francisco Varela,

have been followers of Chögyam Trungpa. Hayward helped to found,
and has taught at, the Naropa Institute/University; he is currently the
“Acharya-in-residence” at the Dechen Chöling meditation center in
France. He also sits on the Board of Editors of the refereed Journal of
Consciousness Studies. Varela sat on the same board until his passing
in 2001, and was a founding member of Wilber’s Integral Institute.
No word on his reincarnations yet, but if your new Xbox or iPod is
acting up....
For my own part, though, I do not consider that proposed rein-
carnational scenario to be at all likely. In the interest of full disclo-
sure, however: I myself used to program computers for a living. Yet,
in spite of those sixty-hour weeks, the “non-human” half of me is still
more Vulcan than semiconductor.
Interestingly, Ken Wilber (2001b) offered his own opinion on a
very closely related subject to the above reincarnational suggestions:
[T]his whole notion that consciousness can be downloaded

into microchips comes mostly from geeky adolescent males
who can’t get laid and stay up all hours of the night staring into
a computer screen, dissociating, abstracting, dissolved in dis-
embodied thinking.
Well, “geeky adolescent males” ... and certain respected lamas.

Also, sort of, Allen Ginsberg’s semi-coherent, unapologetically mi-
sogynistic friend and fellow admirer of Chögyam Trungpa, William
S. Burroughs. (Burroughs was also a huge fan of the work of the
orgone-fancying and orgasm-celebrating psychologist, Wilhelm
Reich.) For, when not busy playing “William Tell”—and missing the
target, if not the devoted head supporting it—with his thence-late
wife, Burroughs (1974) mused the following:
They are now able to replace the parts [of the human body],
like on an old car when it runs down. The next thing, of
course, will be transplanting of brains. We presume that the

ego, what we call the ego, the I, or the You, is located some-
where in the midbrain, so it’s not very long before we can
transfer an ego from one body to another. Rich men will be
able to buy up young bodies.
The aforementioned “geeky adolescent males” and females en-

tertaining similar dreams may well choose to abandon all hope of ever
being as cool or getting laid as often as the respected, chillin’ Mr.
Wilber. (Though what does he think Star Trek conventions are for,
anyway?) Still, even with that horny disadvantage, they would surely
succeed in getting high-school-level ideas correct a really high per-
centage of the time, wouldn’t you figure?
Not everyone can say that.
***
Interestingly, the hardly pacifistic actor Steven Seagal has been de-
clared to be a reincarnated lama, i.e., a sacred vessel or tulku of Ti-
betan Buddhism. Perhaps for that “trailing cloud of glory,” Seagal
was once seated respectfully ahead of—i.e., closer to the stage than—
Richard Gere, at a Los Angeles lecture given by the Dalai Lama. Of
course, if Penor is wrong about Seagal, the former is nowhere near as
wise or intuitive as his followers believe. On the other hand, if he is
right and Seagal is a tulku, that only shows how little such titles (in-
cluding Penor’s own, as Rinpoche) mean.
[I]n 1994 Seagal [reportedly] split with Kusum Lingpa, the ex-
iled Tibetan lama also then favored by Oliver Stone and a
number of other Hollywood stars, when Lingpa refused to de-
clare him a tulku. Then in 1995, Seagal went to India and char-
tered a plane to tour Tibetan monasteries looking for another
spiritual master....
In his audience [with the Dalai Lama], according to Dora
[M.], Seagal felt that something “unique” had transpired be-
tween him and the Dalai Lama. “He claimed that His Holiness
bent down and kissed his feet,” she said. “And Seagal took that
to mean that the Dalai Lama was proclaiming him a deity”
(Schell, 2000).
HELLO, DALAI! 251
In June of 1997, the deified god-man Seagal was formally rec-

ognized as the reincarnation of Chungdrag Dorje—the founder of the
Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism—by Penor Rinpoche.
Penor was in the process of setting up dharma centers around

the world when Seagal invited him to L.A. and reportedly
made a substantial [monetary] contribution to ... his “seat in
the West”....
The editor of the Buddhist journal Tricycle, Helen Twer-
kov [sic], was blunt about her suspicions: “It’s a difficult situa-
tion, because no one who knows Steven Seagal—who’s been
around him—seems to think he demonstrates any elevated
spiritual wisdom” (Schell, 2000).
Such apparent dearth of spirituality, however, has evidently not

dampened Seagal’s enthusiasm for the numerous daft superstitions
inherent in the Tibetan Buddhist path:
[A]ctor Steven Segal [sic] declared, “My chakras began spin-

ning and then went into balance after putting on my [Shaolin]
Wheel [of Life pendant]” (Randi, 2003).
In any case, the aforementioned Penor Rinpoche is the same one

who has expressed deep appreciation for Andrew Cohen’s work. It is
also the same Penor Rinpoche—now head of the Nyingma lineage—
of whom Ken Wilber himself (2000a) has spoken approvingly:
Although I have been meditating for around twenty-five years

—and have tried dozens of different spiritual practices—most
of those that I do at this time were received at the Longchen
Nyingthig given by His Holiness Pema Norbu (Penor) Rin-
poche.
Further, this is also the very same Penor Rinpoche who, in 1986,
recognized one Catharine Burroughs as the first female American
tulku, saying that “the very fabric of her mind was the Dharma”
(Sherrill, 2000). Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche later confirmed that rein-
carnation, i.e., of a sixteenth-century Tibetan saint, Genyenma Ahkön
Lhamo—co-founder of the Palyul tradition of Tibetan Buddhism
within the Nyingma School—as Burroughs. (Khyentse was the Dzog-
chen teacher of the Dalai Lama. He was also, of course, the same sage
who reassured Trungpa’s and Tendzin’s followers that those gurus
had given them authentic dharma, after Tendzin had already given
some of them AIDS.) Burroughs herself, renamed as Jetsunma Ahkön
Norbu Lhamo, went on to accumulate around a hundred followers—
well short of the fifteen hundred which Penor Rinpoche had predicted
would come. She also founded the largest Tibetan Buddhist monas-
tery in the United States, located outside Washington, DC.
The great, recognized female tulku had reportedly earlier claimed
to be the reincarnation of one of Jesus’ female disciples, entrusted in
those earlier times with the passing-down of Gnostic texts. She had
further apparently told her future third husband, in channeled ses-
sions, that the two of them had ruled ancient, unrecorded civilizations
on Earth. They had also supposedly governed galaxies in previous
lifetimes together (Sherrill, 2000).
That, of course, could account for Jetsunma’s fondness for Star
Trek and science fiction movies in general.
In any case, the responsibilities given to the tulku in this present
life were only slightly less impressive than galactic leadership:
“The future of Dharma in the West is riding on us,” she told

her students (Sherrill, 2000).
Nor was the Dharma everything to wind up “riding on” the for-
mer Brooklyn housewife. For, as her androgynously appealing, strong
body of a triathlete, female personal trainer (Teri) was to reportedly
discover, in the midst of a “very personal” relationship:
While Buddhists aren’t really supposed to proselytize, lamas

are known to be very crafty, and they use all kinds of tech-
niques—flattery, promises, even lies—to expose a student to
the Dharma. And it is thought to be an enormous blessing if a
lama chooses to have sex with you (Sherrill, 2000).
Oral sex and masturbation, out. Lesbian sex, in.

“Enormous blessings.”
Thence followed much additional reported financial and personal
nonsense—including the forty-plus Jetsunma dropping Teri and in-
stead taking one of her twenty-something male disciples as a “con-
HELLO, DALAI! 253
sort.” The latter was, however, himself apparently cut loose a year
later. He was further unbelievably talked into becoming a monk in
order to “keep the blessing” conferred upon him in having had sex
with his lama/guru, by never again sleeping with an “ordinary
woman.”
Soon thereafter, the space-age Jetson-ma, “ruler of remote galax-
ies,” became engaged to another male disciple, two decades her jun-
ior. (Her mid-life tastes in clothing correspondingly began to gravitate
toward skin-tight jeans, black leather boots and alleged frequent Vic-
toria’s Secret catalog purchases. Those were apparently paid for out
of a six-figure annual personal allowance which reportedly amounted
to half of the perpetually struggling ashram’s operating expenses
[Sherrill, 2000].) That latest, vacillating follower separated from
Jetsunma in 1996, reunited in 1997, separated again in early 1998 and
reunited once more later that year, then separated again in 1999.
At the start of her “personal involvement” with the bisexual Teri,
Jetsunma had been married to her third husband, in a relationship dat-
ing back to when she was near-completely unknown. In what must
surely be one of the odder divorce settlements ever negotiated, that
former, embittered husband received $2500 in cash and a “large crys-
tal ball”—presumably to aid himself in not getting involved with any
comparably mixed-up women in the future. The same man apparently
later worked in public relations for the Naropa Institute for several
years (Sherrill, 2000).
Well, “better the Mara you know,” etc.
In terms of contextual comparison, Jetsunma predictably fares no
better than any of the other “sages” whom we have previously seen:
[Jetsunma’s husband at the time] felt her distance, and he felt

her growing contempt for him—and for her students. At dinner
she would imitate them, make jokes about them (Sherrill,
2000).
Such reported private imitations and jokes about disciples whose

primary failing was to consider their guru-figure to be a great and
holy being could, of course, have been indulged in for no one’s spiri-
tual or psychological benefit but her own.
Jetsunma’s monastery exhibited a ratio of four nuns to every
monk. Thus, the reported problems with her and within that commu-
nity cannot be blamed on any mere “patriarchal” or “male” considera-

tions. Further, to charitably regard her (and her ilk) as being innocent
victims, who have simply been “corrupted by the [existing] patriar-
chy” (cf. Harvey, 2000), would not likely pass muster with the more
courageous Tenzin Palmo, for one. For, all indications are that
Jetsunma went voluntarily into the Tibetan Buddhist system, know-
ingly increasing her own power at every step. In fact, she allegedly
explicitly pressured Penor Rinpoche for his recognition of her as an
incarnation, before he wanted to give it. Indeed, she was further re-
portedly initially openly disappointed when that reincarnation turned
out to be of an “unknown” saint. At the time when she first met Rin-
poche, well prior to the formal recognition, she and her husband ap-
parently almost didn’t even know what Buddhism was (Sherrill,
2000). Nor would they likely have been so eager to learn, one sus-
pects, had doing so not increased their own stature in the world.
Jetsunma and many of her followers moved in the late ’90s from
coastal Maryland to higher ground in Arizona. That was done in an-
ticipation of the fulfillment of apocalyptic Hopi prophecies—her new
boyfriend at the time was an American Indian shaman—that earth-
quakes, floods and famine would strike the United States in 1999
(Sherrill, 2000).
As of this writing, however, the U.S. thankfully remains very
much geologically intact, with no excess of flood water and no short-
age of food. And if you’ve “felt the earth move” recently, it probably
didn’t register on the Richter scale.
After all that, Penor Rinpoche could reasonably be feeling some-
what burned by his experiences with Jetsunma and Steven Seagal—
the latter of whose purported “divinity” was not welcomed by many
Buddhists. Indeed, in an interview with Martha Sherrill in 1997, Pe-
nor declared that he “would not be recognizing any more Americans
as tulkus.”
So it looks like Richard Gere’s out of luck.
***
The tulku phenomenon itself has an interesting, and very human, his-
tory.
The system of recognizing reincarnations was established at the
beginning of the thirteenth century by the followers of Dusum
HELLO, DALAI! 255
Khyenpa, the first Karmapa Lama. As the religious influence of Ti-

bet’s lamas came to be adapted for political purposes through the cen-
turies, internally and via influence from China, the process of recog-
nizing new tulkus was rather predictably affected.
The traditional method of scrutiny whereby the young hopefuls

had to identify objects belonging to their past incarnation was
often neglected.... It wasn’t at all uncommon to have two or
more candidates—each backed by a powerful faction—openly
and violently [italics added] challenging one well-known tulku
seat (Lehnert, 1998).
Such intrigues are by no means buried merely in the dim and dis-
tant past. For, when it came time to recognize a new (Seventeenth)
Karmapa Lama in the 1980s and ’90s, that allegedly entailed:
• An attempt to steal (literally) the previous Karmapa’s heart

during his 1981 cremation ceremony
• A short-lived claim by a Woodstock, NY, tulku that his wife
was about to give birth to the reincarnated Karmapa, dis-
counted when she delivered a baby girl, as opposed to the
expected male reincarnation
• Billions of mantra repetitions (as a probable delaying tactic)
enjoindered on devoted followers to allegedly “remove mas-
sive obstacles” before the new incarnation could be revealed
• An attempted coup d’état for the leadership of the Karmapa
lineage, with written replies to it being initially smartly
given on (unused) toilet paper
• Reported naïve back-room deals with the calculating Chi-
nese government on the part of one of the four “highly
evolved” lineage holders responsible for collectively recog-
nizing the next Karmapa. The involved lama had as his em-
issary to China one Akong Tulku—Chögyam’s old nemesis
—who came to be regarded as “the main felon splitting the
lineage” (Lehnert, 1998)
• Alleged “forgery, deceit, and a looming fight right at the top
of the lineage,” with the high-ranking lamas there reportedly
displaying “greed, pride, and lust for power”: “People were

being intimidated, forced to sign petitions; some had been
beaten.” Against that was heard a near-lone, courageous
voice of integrity, in one (European) Lama Ole Nydahl
(Lehnert, 1998). Interestingly, Trungpa himself, in 1984, had
Osel Tendzin write to Vajradhatu members, warning them
against Nydahl. Indeed, in that missive, Nydahl’s teaching
style was described as being “contrary to everything we have
been taught and have come to recognize as genuine.” Trung-
pa was further of the opinion that “there is some real perver-
sion of the buddhadharma taking place by Mr. Nydahl”
(Rawlinson, 1997). Coming from individuals so startlingly
ignorant as to believe that their own fatal (to others) mis-
takes were part of some divine, dharmic plan, however, such
catty, back-stabbing evaluations mean nothing at all
• Finally, two different children, each being touted as the Kar-
mapa by different factions within the global Tibetan Bud-
dhist community. One had the support of the politically ma-
nipulative Chinese government and of the duped Dalai
Lama. (The latter, having too-quickly given informal ap-
proval to the recognition on the basis of reportedly false evi-
dence, could not backtrack and admit that he was wrong.)
The other was recognized after a more sincere search
Updates to that continuing dispute exist at www.karmapa-

controversy.org.
Interestingly, one of the aforementioned four lineage holders
claims to have found the reincarnated Trungpa in eastern Tibet. That
same holder, however, was not only apparently making deals with the
government of China, but had also recognized over three hundred
other tulkus within the space of a mere few years previously.
The fact that most of those came from an area bordering his own
primary seat in Tibet (Lehnert, 1998), however, casts a certain
doubt....
Still, if Trungpa’s really back in circulation, “Let’s party!”
***
HELLO, DALAI! 257
It is not only “avant-garde” lamas who have “bent” the rules which
one would otherwise have reasonably assumed were governing their
behaviors. Rather, as June Campbell (1996) has noted from her own
experience:
[I]n the 1970s, I traveled throughout Europe and North Amer-

ica as a Tibetan interpreter, providing the link, through lan-
guage, between my lama-guru [Kalu Rinpoche, 1905 – 1989]
and his many students. Subsequently he requested that I be-
come his sexual consort, and take part in secret activities with
him, despite the fact that to outsiders he was a very high-
ranking yogi-lama of the Kagya lineage who, as abbot of his
own monastery, had taken vows of celibacy. Given that he was
one of the oldest lamas in exile at that time, had personally
spent fourteen years in solitary retreat, and counted amongst
his students the highest ranking lamas in Tibet, his own status
was unquestioned in the Tibetan community, and his holiness
attested to by all....
[I]t was plainly emphasized that any indiscretion [on my
part] in maintaining silence over our affair might lead to mad-
ness, trouble, or even death [e.g., via magical curses placed
upon the indiscrete one].
And how did the compassionate, bodhisattva-filled Tibetan Bud-

dhist community react to such allegations?
[M]any rejected out of hand Campbell’s claims as sheer fabri-

cation coming from somebody eager to gain fame at the ex-
pense of a deceased lama (Lehnert, 1998; italics added).
***
Well, enough of Buddhist sex. How about some Buddhist violence?

More specifically, in keeping with such extreme contemporary
brutality as is regularly portrayed in tulku Steven Seagal’s movies, it
has been whispered that
in old Tibet ... the lamas were the allies of feudalism and un-
smilingly inflicted medieval punishments such as blinding and
flogging unto death (Hitchens, 1998).
Visiting the Lhasa [Tibet] museum, [journalist Alain Jacob]

saw “dried and tanned children’s skins, various amputated hu-
man limbs, either dried or preserved, and numerous instru-
ments of torture that were in use until a few decades ago”....
These were the souvenirs and instruments of the vanished
lamas, proof, Jacob notes, that under the Buddhist religious
rule in Tibet “there survived into the middle of the twentieth
century feudal practices which, while serving a well-
established purpose, were nonetheless chillingly cruel.”
The “well-established purpose”? Maintaining social order
in a church-state (Clark, 1980).
The early twentieth-century, Viennese-born explorer Joseph

Rock minced even fewer words:
“One must take for granted that every Tibetan, at least in this
part of the world, was a robber sometime in his life,” he sar-
donically observed of the Goloks [tribe]. “Even the lamas are
not averse to cutting one’s throat, although they would be hor-
rified at killing a dog, or perhaps even a vermin” (Schell,
2000).
The caliber of monks today has not, it seems, radically im-

proved:
[O]ver 90% of those who wear the robes [in India, and else-
where] are “frauds” in the sense the questioners would connote
by “fraud.” The idea that the monk is more perfect than the
non-monk is inveterate, and it is kindled by the monks them-
selves. If perfection is to mean greater dedication to the search
for spiritual emancipation, then there is undoubtedly more of it
among the monks. But in terms of human morality and of hu-
man intellect, monks are nowhere more perfect than lay people
(Bharati, 1980; italics added).
Far too many men become Buddhist monks, because it’s a

good life and they have devotion. The Dalai Lama has publicly
stated that only ten out of one hundred monks are true candi-
dates (Mackenzie, 1999).
Likewise for Japanese Zen:

HELLO, DALAI! 259
It seemed to me that most of the monks [at Suienji] were proud

of their position, lazy, stupid, greedy, angry, confused, or some
combination. Mainly they were the sons of temple priests put-
ting in their obligatory training time so that they could follow
in daddy’s footsteps. They listened to radios, drank at night
and had pinups on the wall.
What they were really into, though, was power trips. It’s
what got them off.... The senior monks were always pushing
around the junior monks, who in turn were pushing around the
ones that came after them (in Chadwick, 1994).
The observations of a Thai Buddhist monk, in Ward (1998), at a

monastery run by Ajahn Chah, are no more flattering:
The farang [Westerners] at this wat [monastery] who call

themselves monks are nothing but a bunch of social rejects
who have found a place where they can get free food, free
shelter and free respect. They are complacent and their only
concern is their perks at the top end of the hierarchy.
For more of the “inside story” on Tibetan Buddhism, consult

Trimondi and Trimondi’s (2003) The Shadow of the Dalai Lama:
Sexuality, Magic and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism.
***
Of course, no discussion of Tibetan Buddhism would be complete

without mention of T. Lobsang Rampa (d. 1981).
Rampa was the author, in the 1950s and ’60s, of more than a
dozen popular books concerning his claimed experiences growing up
as a lama in Tibet. Among them, we find 1956’s best-selling The
Third Eye, concerning an operation allegedly undergone by Rampa to
open up his clairvoyant faculties.
In the midst of that literary success, however, it was discovered
that Rampa was in fact none other than a pen name for the Irish “son
of a plumber,” Cyril Hoskins (Bharati, 1974).
Hoskins himself had never been to Tibet.
But then, the average Tibetan, in Hoskins’ day at least, had never
seen indoor plumbing.
So perhaps it all evens out.
***
As might be expected, radically enlightened practitioners of Tibetan

Buddhism counted through the ages and today are as rare as they are
on any other path.
When I asked an old lama from Tibet about whether these ten
stages [of awakening to Buddha Nature, i.e., bhumis] are in
fact a part of the practice, he said, “Of course they really ex-
ist.” But when I inquired who in his tradition had attained
them, he replied wistfully, “In these difficult times I cannot
name a single lama who has mastered even the second stage”
(Kornfield, 2000).
Undaunted, the current Dalai Lama himself keeps to a busy

schedule of spiritually enlightening meditation—six hours per day.
He also continues the non-violent political activities which brought
him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
Of course, having so little spare time would undoubtedly help to
force the proper prioritization of one’s activities. Nevertheless:
Repeated attempts to get a response to this [critical] article

from His Holiness through his New York media representative
were met with a “too busy” response. Yet the New York Times
reported that the Tibetan leader somehow found time for a
photo op with pop star Ricky Martin (Zupp, 2003).
So it goes, when one is “Livin’ La Vida Lama.”

Regardless, His Holiness has left us with at least one eminently
good idea to live by, in sloughing through the sorry state of affairs
that calls itself “spirituality” in this world:
“Whenever exploitation, sexual abuse or money abuse hap-

pen,” the Dalai Lama says, “make them public” (Leonard,
2001).
In the next chapter we will meet a courageous group of people

who did exactly that, and more.
CHAPTER XXIII
UP THE ASANA
(YOGI AMRIT DESAI)
Yogi Desai is an enlightened Master with penetrating insight

and intuition (in Desai, 1981; self-published).
YOGI AMRIT DESAI IS THE ORIGINATOR of Kripalu Yoga, and for-

merly the head of the Kripalu Center in Lenox, Massachusetts—by
now, the “largest and most established yoga retreat in North Amer-
ica.” How he came to found that center, and then be reportedly forced
to leave by his own students, we shall soon see.
Desai grew up in India, meeting his guru, Swami Kripalvanandji
—a claimed kundalini yoga master—there in 1948, at the age of six-
teen. Kripalvananda’s guru, in turn, was mythologically believed to
be “Lord Lakulish, the twenty-eighth incarnation of Lord Shiva”
(Cope, 2000). Interestingly, Kripalvananda is said to have practiced
“yogic masturbation,” i.e., masturbation in the context of meditation,
for the purpose of raising energies up the spine (Elias, 2002).
Amrit himself came to America as an art student in 1960, and
described (1981) his discovery of Kripalu Yoga, while married and
living in Philadelphia in 1970, as follows:
[D]uring my routine practice of hatha yoga postures I found

my body moving spontaneously and effortlessly while at the
same time I was being drawn into the deepest meditation I had
261
ever experienced. The power and intelligence that guided me

through this seemingly paradoxical experience of meditation
and motion left me in awe and bliss. That morning my body
moved of its own volition, without my direction, automatically
performing an elaborate series of flowing motions. Many of
these “postures” [i.e., asanas] I had never seen even in any
yoga book before.
As Swami Kripalvananda explained it (in Desai, 1981):
[A]ll of these innumerable postures, movements, and mudras

[hand gestures] ... occur automatically when the evolutionary
energy of prana has been awakened in the body of a yogi....
This is an integral part of the awakening of kundalini.
Desai gave the name “Kripalu” to the system of yoga which he

elaborated from his initial experience and others following it. The
name was bestowed in honor of his guru, whose special grace Amrit
considered to be responsible for that discovery.
Following that awakening, Desai founded his first ashram in
1970, and established a second one in Pennsylvania in 1975. The Kri-
palu Center for Yoga and Health was created in Massachusetts in
1983, with branches in North America, Europe and India.
From those centers, Yogi Desai (or “Gurudev”) dispensed both
discipline and wisdom, for the spiritual benefit of his followers:
As often as possible tell yourself, “I want nothing. I want to be

nothing. I brought nothing with me, nor will I take anything
when I go. I want to accomplish nothing for myself. I give my
life to God and my guru”....
[A]ll the guru wants is your happiness and growth (Desai,
1985).
Gurudev in no way censures sexual love—only the abuse of it.

Married couples at the ashram may have a moderate sex life
without diverting the course of their sadhana. Unmarried per-
sons are asked to refrain (Rajendra, 1976).
In the face of those and other restrictions and assurances, loyal

ashram leaders still reluctantly allowed that
UP THE ASANA 263
[i]n a moment of paranoid self-indulgence [an ashram resident]

may question the guru’s honorable spiritual intentions (Rajen-
dra, 1976).
Indeed. As they say, however, “Just because you’re paranoid

doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”
Thus, a decade after his founding of Kripalu, still married and
encouraging strict celibacy for his unmarried disciples, Desai found
himself caught in a scandal. Such controversy was of his own making,
and indeed arose from the discovery that he had secretly been demon-
strating his “penetrating insight” ... to the receptive vessels of three of
his female students (Carlson, 2002a). In the wake of that, he resigned
as spiritual director of Kripalu in 1994. Or, more accurately, he was
reportedly forced to leave by the residents of the ashram which he
himself had founded.
Bravo!!
Following that departure, Kripalu restructured its organization to
be led by a professional management team, “several of whom are
former ashram residents.” It has thereby become “the first traditional
yoga ashram founded on the guru-disciple model to transition to a
new paradigm of spiritual education” (Kripalu, 2003).
Of course, anyone who has ever worked under “professional
management teams” knows that they, too, are far from perfect, at
times to the point of obvious pathology. But at least it’s a step in the
right direction.
***
Kripalu, wisely sans Desai, now serves over 15,000 guests per year.
As to Yogi Amrit himself, after a period of retirement he re-
sumed teaching, and was recently invited to be the “leading spiritual
teacher at a new ashram” to be founded by Deepak Chopra (Cohen,
2000a). He presently teaches in Salt Springs, Florida.
Not surprisingly, Desai’s current bio at www.amrityoga.com
makes no mention of the Kripalu Center connection or scandal.
(Likewise, there is no word within the History section at www.kripalu
.org as to why Desai left them.) Indeed, on that new site he is referred
to with deep respect as “Gurudev”—i.e., “beloved teacher” or “divine
guru”—as he was at Kripalu during his heyday.
And thereby are the next generation of fresh-faced, idealistic

young spiritual seekers served old, vinegary wine in new bottles—
unaware, more often than not, of the history of that sour vintage.
CHAPTER XXIV
SODOMY AND
GOMORRAH
Whenever you have an individual who claims a direct pipeline

with God and has no accountability, if you don’t have a [so-
called] cult today, you will have one tomorrow (Geisler, 1991).
A [so-called] destructive cult distinguishes itself from a normal

social or religious group by subjecting its members to persua-
sion or other damaging influences to keep them in the group....
Members are thoroughly indoctrinated with the belief that
if they ever do leave, terrible consequences will befall them
(Hassan, 1990).
CHARACTERISTICS COMMONLY SEEN IN SO-CALLED CULTS include

the presence of an infallible leader, and a prohibition on questioning
the teachings. Hypnotic chanting or the like is frequently fingered as a
means of inducing a suggestible, trance-like state, and thus of control-
ling the minds of the followers. Further, one often finds a “hidden
agenda,” whereby it is not fully explained to prospective members of
the group as to what they may be asked to do, should they choose to
join.
In addition, residents of the community will often lead minutely
regulated existences—even to the point of control of their sex lives—
their hours being filled with organization-related activities, with no
265
time for reflection as to the morality of their actions. (“Keep members

so busy they don’t have time to think and check things out” [Hassan,
2000].) Plus, not infrequently, devotees have feelings of persecution,
and associated beliefs that “the world is out to get them,” via con-
spiracies to destroy the organization. They may also be required to
report or confess their “thoughts, feelings and activities” to their supe-
riors.
Also, one regularly finds a lack of proper medical care for even
the most devoted members, and indoctrinated phobias to prevent fol-
lowers from leaving. Plus, we see the suppression of information
harmful to the group, and the presence of apocalyptic teachings, with
only the members of the sect being “saved” from eternal damnation.
The group, that is, is the “one, true Way,” allowing its members to
conceive of no happiness outside of itself, and keeping them in sway
via the fear of losing their salvation should they consider leaving.
Conversely, followers who breach the rigid rules and regulations of
the organization or ask critical questions of the leader are at risk of
being kicked out of the group, or “excommunicated.”
Speaking of the Roman Catholic Church....
[U]nlike Judaism, Catholicism embraces and espouses the be-

lief that it is the one and only true faith (Bruni and Burkett,
2002).
And of its divinely inspired leader, then:
A pope ... believes, along with many hundreds of millions of

the faithful, that he is God’s representative on Earth....
The theologian John Henry Newman, Britain’s most fa-
mous convert to Catholicism in the nineteenth century, deliv-
ered a devastating verdict ... : “[A long-lived pope] becomes a
god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts, and
does cruel things without meaning it” (Cornwell, 1999).
Even for that “god’s” underlings or inner circle, though, the dis-
tance from God, in the eyes of their flock, is hardly any greater:
We were taught [that Catholic priests] were Christ’s represen-

tatives on Earth (in Boston Globe, 2003).
SODOMY AND GOMORRAH 267
Papal infallibility (on matters of doctrine, faith and morals) was

decreed by Pope Pius IX in 1870. The relatively recent nature of that
“perfection” may perhaps allow us to more easily understand the be-
haviors of at least one of his forebears:
In the tenth century a dissolute teenager could be elected pope

(John XII) because of his family connections and die a decade
later in the bed of a married woman (Wills, 2000).
Died happy, though....
John XII was so enthralled by one of his concubines, Rainera,

that he entrusted her with much of the administration of the
Holy See (Allen, 2004).
“One of his concubines.” Among how many?

Some popes have all the luck.
Saint Augustine, too, fathered a child out of wedlock as a teen-
ager, living with its mother for fifteen years, and practicing contra-
ception as a Manichean during that time (Wills, 2000). He further
never went to confession—a sacrament given only once in a lifetime,
in those bygone days (Wills, 1972). Priestly celibacy was likewise
only a medieval demand, enjoindered to ensure that Church properties
did not fall into the hands of offspring, as inheritance:
[I]n the beginning [of the Church], there was no mandatory

celibacy. Saint Peter, the first pope, was married. Pope Anasta-
sius I was the father of Pope Innocent, Pope Sergius III begat
Pope John XI and Pope Theodore I was the son of a bishop
(Bruni and Burkett, 2002).
More recently, a survey was conducted in 1980 by one Richard

Wagner. It covered fifty ostensibly celibate priestly respondents—
half of whom “knew they were gay before ordination.” The survey
found that those holy men “averaged 226 partners in sex, a number
reached only because 22% of them had over 500” (Wills, 2000).
Surprised? Or: Think of how many partners they might have had
if they weren’t celibate and chaste!
In any case, the altar boys groped, seduced and sodomized by

various Catholic priests certainly did not have everything they might
be asked to do for the Church explained to them up front.
Nor behind.
Proper medical care for those who have given their lives to the
cause? Not if you’re Thérèse of Lisieux (1873 – 1897), whose power-
enjoying, vindictive prioress delayed sending for crisis medical help.
She further restricted one doctor’s visits from his suggestion that he
come every day to three times in total, and forbade injections of mor-
phia as Thérèse lay dying of tuberculosis (Furlong, 1987).
More recently, in the 1930s, a girl placed in an industrial school
in Ireland run by the so-called Sisters of Mercy told her story:
I had a lot of abscesses.... I couldn’t walk at one stage. I kept

passing out, particularly at Mass in the mornings. When I was
about nine, I was very sick—I had a big lump under my arm,
and they had to put poultices on it. They wouldn’t call a doc-
tor, because they’d have had to pay for that (in Raftery and
O’Sullivan, 2001).
Likewise for the life of nuns in Massachusetts, as one lay mem-

ber recorded:
I’d see priests driving around in Cadillacs. I remember reading

a story about how nuns didn’t have full health insurance and
was just infuriated by the injustice in that (in Boston Globe,
2003).
The free exchange of information, beyond the boundaries of the

organization, for petitioners to receive honest answers to even embar-
rassing questions? Not divinely likely:
Cardinals take an oath to the pope to safeguard the church

from scandal—to prevent bad information from becoming pub-
lic (Berry and Renner, 2004; italics added).
Honest mistakes, incompetence, negligence and intentional

wrongdoing are all abhorrent to the higher leadership [of the
Roman Catholic Church]. All are denied, covered up and ra-
tionalized with equal zeal. The clerical world truly believes
that it has been established by God and that its members are
singled out and favored by the Almighty.... Higher authority
figures are regarded with a mixture of fear and awe by all be-
low them. The circles of power are closed, the tightest being
among those existing among bishops.... Secrecy provides a
layer of insulation between the one in authority and anyone
who might be tempted to question its exercise (Doyle, 2003).
Freedom to question the teachings? Please.
The French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was so reviled by

the Holy Office for his vision of a spirituality in harmony with
human evolution that his major works, which have reached
millions of readers, were suppressed in his lifetime. Karl Rah-
ner, who argued that theology should develop in the spirit of a
time, and Yves Congar, who emphasized the role of laypeople
in an evolving church, were marginalized in the 1950s by Pius
XII, who had no use for their views (Berry and Renner, 2004).
Under that same intellectual oppression, de Chardin was actually

given the choice of either being exiled to the United States, or living
under surveillance in a retreat house; he chose the former. One
American Jesuit compared that treatment of Teilhard, and of others
who had been influenced by his work, to a “Stalinist purge”
(Cornwell, 1999).
By doctrine, it was still [in the 1950s and early ’60s, prior to
the Vatican II council] a sin to read any book on the [Index Li-
brorum Prohibitorum] list, including Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant,
and especially Darwin (Sennott, 1992).
[T]he Anti-Modernist Oath, [enacted by Pope Pius X in 1910

and] sworn to this day in modified form by Catholic ordinands
... required acceptance of all papal teaching, and acquiescence
at all times to the meaning and sense of such teaching as dic-
tated by the pope.... There was no possibility of any form of
dissent, even interior. The conscience of the person taking the
oath was forced to accept not only what Rome proposed, but
even the sense in which Rome interpreted it. Not only was this
contrary to the traditional Catholic understanding of the role of
conscience, but it was a form of thought control that was unri-

valled even under fascist and communist regimes (Cornwell,
1999).
Nor has the situation improved in more recent years:
In the first year of his papacy, [John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla]
revoked the teaching license of Father Hans Küng, the Swiss
theologian who has challenged papal infallibility.... In 1997
Wojtyla excommunicated the Sri Lankan writer-priest Tissa
Balasuriya for diluting Roman doctrinal orthodoxy: Balasuri-
ya’s writing had cast doubts on the doctrines of original sin
and the virginity of the Mother of God (Cornwell, 1999).
By contrast:
Rome never put Hitler’s writings on the Index; the Führer until
the end of his reign was allowed to remain a member of the
Church, i.e., he was not excommunicated (Lewy, 2000).
Interested in having the truth be known at all costs? Right....
Two ladies, worried about their pastor’s overtures to teenage

boys, discovered that he had come to their town from a treat-
ment center after a plea bargain. A boy he had molested in a
previous parish cut off a finger and received a settlement.
When the ladies asked that Father be removed, the bishop not
only refused their request but threatened a slander suit if they
made a public issue of it (Berry, 1992).
Or, as the journalist Michael Harris (1991) confided to a victim

of alleged clergy sexual abuse who was about to go public with his
story, in cautioning the latter about the associated police- and gov-
ernment-aided cover-up around the Christian Brothers’ Mount Cashel
Orphanage in Newfoundland:
[T]here are powerful forces involved in this story, for whom

the last thing that is wanted is the truth. I don’t believe that
many people will be congratulating either you or me for bring-
ing this sordid affair into the public eye.
In an interview [in May of 2002] Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez

Maradiaga of Honduras, widely seen as a leading candidate to
be the next pope, addressed the American [pedophilia] crisis.
He blamed the American press for “persecution” of the
Church.... “Only in this fashion can I explain the ferocity [of
attacks on the esteem of the Catholic Church] that reminds me
of the times of Nero and Diocletian, and more recently, of Sta-
lin and Hitler” [he said]....
Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City ... ech-
oed Rodriguez’s comments on the American crisis. “Not only
in the United States but also in other parts of the world, one
can see underway an orchestrated plan for striking at the pres-
tige of the Church. Not a few journalists have confirmed for
me the existence of this organized campaign,” he said (Allen,
2004).
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati had earlier character-

ized the media exposure of Catholic clergy abuse as deriving from a
“corporate vendetta” against the Church. Father Charles Fiore,
meanwhile, suggested that pedophiles had been planted in the priestly
ranks by liberals determined to undermine Christianity. Conversely,
he expressed the belief that a purge of communists would stop the
conspiracy against his holy organization (Bruni and Burkett, 2002).
And as late as 2002, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger weighed in with his
own, equally facile “conspiracy theory,” of there allegedly being a
“planned campaign” to discredit the Roman Catholics.
[Vatican affairs writer Orazio] Petrosillo indicated three

groups in the United States that may have inspired such a cam-
paign: “Masonic lodges,” “Jewish lobbies,” and “groups of
free thought and free morals” such as gays (Allen, 2004).
But “impure,” menstruating women too though, right? Why stop

at gays and Jews—not to mention (gasp!) “free thinkers”—when
you’re desperately searching for scapegoats to blame for your own
family’s cruel sins and inexcusable indifference to the suffering of
others? When even the crusading, witch-hunting, Inquisition-ing
Catholic Church is, in its own mind, a “victim,” you know you are
living in a strange world indeed.
In reality, even a minimal awareness of the extant media exposés

of Eastern guru-figures would have sufficed to demonstrate that both
the “God-inspired Church” and its “demonic” competitors are being
exposed in direct proportion to the sheer quantity of their alleged
abuses. The Freemasons, Jews and gays—“surprisingly”—cannot be
blamed for that, any more than an “anti-Asian” bias could be asserted
to be the source of any “conspiracy” to expose the alleged abuses of
our world’s gurus!
(Note: Even without any conscious effort on my own part, it
turns out that around 45% of the figures covered at any depth in this
book are Westerners. “Authentic spirituality” typically involves East-
ern philosophy. And the guru-disciple phenomenon, in general,
comes to the West from the East. Thus, a greater percentage of the
“best” of its practitioners are predictably going to be from the East
than from the West. One therefore cannot reasonably hope for a split
closer to 50/50 than this book represents. Were I aware of any compa-
rable exposés of misbehaviors within guru-disciple-like relationships
among Freemasons, Jews, gays or hermaphrodites [cf. Sai Baba],
where the guru-figures were widely viewed as purveying “authentic,
transformative spirituality” and as being among the “best” in their
respective paths, I would happily have included them.)
Nor though, equally, can recent exposés of the inhumane condi-
tions faced by animals in kosher slaughterhouses be rationally viewed
as an “anti-Semitic attack” on Jewish religious practices (in Simon,
2004) ... oy vey!
Further, regarding the convenient claim that Judaism avoids the
“cultist” tendencies of, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, by
not claiming to be “the one and only true faith,” thus allegedly allow-
ing followers to leave the religion without penalty:
In the Olam Ha-Ba [i.e., the Messianic Age], the whole world
will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the
Jewish religion as the only true religion (Rich, 2001).
Could one have expected any less, though, given the “chosen
group” complex of the entire tradition? Of course it’s “the one true
religion”! How could they be the “chosen people” if it weren’t?
By stark contrast to such prevailing foolishness, blame-monger-
ing and paranoia as the above, Chapter 2 of Bruni and Burkett’s
(2002) A Gospel of Shame offers a wonderfully coherent and insight-

ful analysis of why the reluctantly apologetic Catholic Church has
justifiably fared so poorly in media presentations of its wide-ranging
sins. The same book offers by far the best explanation I have found of
the various sexual and social factors most likely to play a role in cre-
ating the pedophilic orientation. It also contains the best documenta-
tion of the initial deferential underreporting of Catholic clergy abuse
by the North American media, showing claims of “anti-Catholic bias”
in the same media to be wholly unfounded.
For the centuried misogyny, calculated power-grabs, general
“stubborn resistance to the truth” and associated widespread deceit in
the Catholic Church, consult Garry Wills’ (2000) surprising Papal
Sin. For the shameful history of anti-Semitism in the same organiza-
tion, from its highest leaders on down, see Cornwell’s (1999) Hitler’s
Pope and Lewy’s (2000) The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany.
For the connection between the Vatican and post-WWII “Nazi smug-
gling” in the fight against communism, refer to Aarons and Loftus’
(1998) Unholy Trinity:
[Ante] Pavelić ... had been the Poglavnik of “independent”

Croatia, exercising comparable powers to the Führer in Ger-
many. He had even managed to keep the death machine operat-
ing almost until the end, while the Germans were frantically
dismantling theirs....
In a strange reversal of roles, [Pavelić] castigated the
Führer about the “lenient” treatment of German Jews, boasting
that in comparison he had completely solved the Jewish ques-
tion in Croatia while some remained alive in the Third Reich....
The Pope’s own attitude towards the murderous Ustashi
[terrorist network] leader was more than benign neglect.... Pius
[XII] himself promised to give Pavelić his personal blessing
again. By this time, the Holy See possessed abundant evidence
of the atrocities committed by his regime.
Nor were other aspects of that pope’s silent conduct during the
time of Hitler any more praiseworthy:
It seems beyond any doubt ... that if the churches had opposed
the killing and the persecution of the Jews, as they opposed the
killing of the congenitally insane and the sick, there would

have been no Final Solution (in Cornwell, 1999).
If [Pius XII] is to take credit for the use of Vatican extraterrito-

rial religious buildings as safe houses for Jews during Ger-
many’s occupation of Rome, then he should equally take
blame for the use of the same buildings as safe houses for Nazi
and Ustash[i] criminals (Cornwell, 1999).
Or, as Settimia Spizzichino, the sole survivor of the German

roundup and deportation of Rome’s Jews, put it in a 1995 interview
with the BBC:
I came back from Auschwitz on my own. I lost my mother,

two sisters, a niece, and one brother. Pius XII could have
warned us about what was going to happen. We might have
escaped from Rome and joined the partisans. He played right
into the Germans’ hands. It all happened right under his nose.
But he was an anti-Semitic pope, a pro-German pope. He
didn’t take a single risk. And when they say the pope is like
Jesus Christ, it is not true. He did not save a single child. Noth-
ing.
Of course, when “Satan” is thus attacking holy men—as in the

current pedophilia crisis—for doing “God’s work,” there is a sure-fire
defense for any “believer.” The same defense could, indeed, be di-
rected equally ineffectually against the present book and author as
well:
[W]e call down God’s power on the [anti-Catholic] media

(Cardinal Bernard Law, in [Boston Globe, 2003]).
Controlling their followers’ sex lives? Injunctions against con-

traception and the regard for fornication, contraception and homosex-
ual activity as “mortal sins” will certainly do that.
Many priests were disillusioned by celibacy, which they saw

as a mechanism of control, much akin to [the Church’s] au-
thoritarian attitude toward lay people’s sex lives (Berry, 1992).
Pius XII ... made the condemnation of birth control resonate

ceaselessly from classrooms, pamphlets, confessionals, with a
kind of hysterical insistence. Contraception was a mortal sin.
Its unrepenting practitioners were going to hell (Wills, 2000).
Not only were oral and anal intercourse forbidden, but all va-
rieties of stimulation or position were counted unnatural except
the man-on-top performance. The act with a single goal [i.e.,
impregnation] was to have but a single mode of execution
(Wills, 1972).
Nor was it necessary to thus “execute” improperly—in “Catholic

roulette” (i.e., sex without contraception) or otherwise—in order for
one to run afoul of the God of Law:
[B]ack in the 1950s if you ate meat on Friday, did not wear a
hat or veil to church, or ate breakfast before Communion, you
could burn in hell for these sins (in Boston Globe, 2003).
Oral sex and “eating meat,” out. Hats on, and thou shalt not spill
thy seed upon the ground. And yet—
Dr. William Masters found that ninety-eight out of the hundred

priests he surveyed were masturbating (Wills, 2000).
And you just know they’re sneaking food before Communion,

too!
[A]ll sensual indulgence was lumped together [in the Deca-

logue, i.e., the Ten Commandments] under the prohibition
against “coveting thy neighbor’s wife,” an approach which
made gluttony, laziness, and drunkenness directly sexual of-
fenses—offenses where, according to Catholic moralists of the
old school ... all sins were automatically grave or “mortal.” I
knew a scrupulous young man who was literally driven mad by
this line of thought (Wills, 1972).
Are the lives of residents further being wholly given over to the
organization? Do they work long days with no time left over to ques-
tion the teachings or reflect on the consequences of their own actions,

having little contact with outside ideas? Evidently so:
The nuns lived minutely regulated lives, their waking hours

crammed with communal prayers, devotional exercises, care of
the convent and sacristy, a heavy teaching load, the training of
children for first communion (or May procession, or confirma-
tion), rehearsing of the choir and coaching of altar boys....
They were not often allowed out of the convent—not even to
visit libraries (Wills, 1972).
Repetitive, hypnotic chanting? Yes, yes, yes:
[Church] rites have great authority; they hypnotize. Not least

by their Latinity. It is not certain, philologists say, that “hocus-
pocus” is derived from “Hoc est Corpus” in the Mass; but the
Latin phrases, often rhythmed, said in litanies and lists of
saints’ names, replicated, coming at us in antiphonies and tri-
ple cries (Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus), had a witchery in them,
to hush or compel us as by incantation (Wills, 1972).
Apocalyptic beliefs? Let me count the Horsemen.

You are free, of course, to leave the Church, along with its
Masses, Communion and confessionals, at any time ... provided that
you can face the indoctrinated phobia of eternal damnation for your
soul, in dying with “mortal sins” unabsolved. In no way, that is, could
you leave that group and yet be “happy and fulfilled,” if any of what
you had been taught were true.
Harassment and ostracism of those who dare to expose the cor-
ruption of the sacred Church? Naturally:
The [Patty Hanson] family filed a lawsuit against the Diocese

of Phoenix [for the alleged sexual abuse of their children at the
hands of their Father]. They got nasty letters saying they were
ruthless liars peddling trumped-up accusations and exagger-
ated suffering for a little limelight and a lot of cash. They got
harassing phone calls at 3 a.m. and anonymous death threats
All of which is to say that the closer one looks at alleged “cults”
versus “legitimate” religions, the less difference one can find between
them. (Cf. “We define ‘cult’ as a group where the leader is unchal-
lengeable and considered infallible” [Kramer and Alstad, 1993]. Also
compare Robert Lifton’s [1989] eight characteristics of any totalistic
group. Then judge for yourself whether or not the Catholic Church
fits every one of them.) That is even aside from Pope John Paul’s ex-
plicit endorsement of Mexico’s Father Maciel and his allegedly sexu-
ally abusive Legionaries of Christ organization. For there, to exit that
group—not merely to leave the religion in general—was explicitly to
lose one’s salvation. Yet reportedly, in the same environment:
Maciel’s ruse about getting permission for his sexual urges

from Pope Pius XII was [told] to bewildered seminarians,
some barely past puberty, in order to sexually abuse them and
satisfy himself (Berry and Renner, 2004).
Or, closer to home, as a Cajun Catholic woman alleged of her

experiences at the hands of her own parish priest:
I was told [by Father John] that I had been chosen by God to
help him with his studies of sex because he was responsible for
helping adults and he didn’t know anything about it (in Berry,
1992).
[Tim] said nothing when Father Jay took him into the bath-
room at his parents’ house and asked him to perform oral
sex....
Father Jay told the boy: “This is between you and me.
This is something special. God would approve.” And Tim be-
lieved him (Bruni and Burkett, 2002).
Comparable “chosen by God” lines have, of course, been used

by many a guru-figure on his (or her) own bewildered disciples, to get
them to put out. As has, perhaps, the trusted, “unimpeachable charac-
ter” of other “men of God”:
[Father Bruce] Ritter was ... America’s answer to Mother

Teresa....
When Father Bruce turned his attention to one of [his

helpers at the misled Covenant House mission for street kids
—the “McDonald’s of child care”], they often described feel-
ing a kind of “glow” or “warm light.” In many ways, their reli-
gious devotion was not only to God but to Father Bruce—a
cult of personality around the man whose mission they carried
out (Sennott, 1992).
“America’s answer to Mother Teresa” was later accused of

“sexually abusing or sexually approaching” more than a dozen of the
boys in his care—a charge he denies.
Other respected Catholic holy men, however, have been able to
counter less of their own alleged indiscretions:
The priest engaged in anal intercourse, oral sex, group sex with
two boys at a time, plied them with pot, had a dog lick their
genitals (Berry, 1992).
Elsewhere, too:
Nearly two hundred people [one of them just four years old at
the time] who say they were raped or fondled by [the now-late
Rev. John J.] Geoghan have filed claims against him and his
supervisors in the last several years. Experts believe he proba-
bly molested three to four times as many people as have come
forward....
By most accounts at least fifteen hundred priests [by now,
over four thousand (Zoll, 2005)] have faced public accusations
of sexual misconduct with minors since the mid-1980s (Boston
Globe, 2003).
Father Anthony Corbin ... confessed to having had sex with an

eighth-grade boy. Corbin dressed his victim in a loincloth to
resemble Christ headed for the crucifix[ion] (Bruni and Bur-
kett, 2002).
Some of what was done [by the Catholic Christian Brothers

and the Sisters of Mercy] was of a quite exceptional depravity,
so that terms like “sexual abuse” are too weak to convey it. For
example ... the account of a man who as a boy was a particular
favorite of some Christian Brothers at Tardun [Australia] who

competed as to who could rape him one hundred times first,
his account of being in terrible pain, bleeding and bewildered
(Raftery and O’Sullivan, 2001).
With “holiness” and “purity” like that, who needs obscenity?

With conscienceless “saints” and “representatives of God on
Earth” like these, who needs demonic sinners?
The family-incest-like attempted cover-ups of alleged Catholic
clergy sexual abuse further show quite brutally how little the sup-
posed “checks and balances” within that same system actually work.
So, too, do the related and utterly cruel attempts to discredit the vic-
tims, and the closing of the upper clerical ranks against the latter.
(Thomas Doyle characterized the Church’s response to that reported
abuse as involving “a defrauding, a stonewalling, and outright lying
to the people” [in Berry and Renner, 2004].) For there, offending
priests, even those with known and extensive histories of sexual
abuse, were more likely to simply be transferred to another parish—if
not simultaneously promoted, suspended with pay, or retired with
pension—than to be meaningfully censured. That was done even after
the violated families had been explicitly guaranteed by religious supe-
riors that specific, appropriate steps would be taken to ensure that the
abuse “would never happen again.” (The same promises were, of
course, later grossly broken.)
Many argued that the hierarchy’s handling of abusive priests

revealed systemic problems with their Church. “It isn’t just the
cardinal; it’s the way we operate.... There are structural issues.
What is it that has made us priests be so [unwilling to] speak
out when something awful is happening, and not to cover up?”
(Boston Globe, 2003).
Amazingly, even after the Inquisition, even after the wanton

burning of witches at the stake, even after countless holy wars and
crusades, the depths of cruelty and evil perpetrated by our world’s
“safe,” traditional religions—never mind its potentially harmful non-
traditional groups—still surprises us. Yet, there is nothing whatsoever
“new” in something like the recent Catholic scandals. That is so, first
when compared with the fear-ridden constraints and “skillful” cruel-
ties of the centuried guru game, and the rampant alleged sexual abuse
by “divine” gurus of their own disciples, in “compassionate, tolerant”

Buddhism and elsewhere. It is also true when viewed in terms of the
Church’s own millennia of canonical laws directed toward (and thus
admitting the existence of) pedophilia among their clergy.
When Pope Alexander VI [d. 1503] marked the final victory of

Catholic Spain over the Moors, he did so not with a Mass at St.
Peter’s but with a party in the piazza in front of the church.
Flagons of wine flowed among the honored guests, women
from Rome’s most elegant brothels offered their services and
children were passed freely among bishops and priests cele-
brating Catholicism’s latest triumph with a sexual bacchanalia
If we have learned one thing specifically from the Catholic

Church, though, it is that there is no hope whatsoever of our world’s
religions changing for the better, without their evils being publicly
exposed:
No problem is ever solved discreetly any more, especially in

the Catholic Church. The problems are only solved when the
Catholic people say out loud and on the record what a lot of
them are thinking privately, and aim their message directly at
the religious leadership (Andrew Greeley, in [Berry, 1992]).
And even then, the scandals which had first surfaced in the late
1980s and early ’90s raised their heads again around the turn of the
century, in a new wave of accusations of clergy sexual abuse, sub-
stantially identical to those which were thought to have been properly
addressed by that revered leadership a decade earlier. And both of
those waves, sadly, have only gone to show how these “holy” organi-
zations will typically close ranks and fight tooth and nail, in an “or-
deal by litigation” directed at their already shattered victims. For they
must, above all, protect the virginal public reputation of their “divine
institution,” through which God speaks so uniquely.
Conversely:
If there are any heroes in this squalid tale, they are the victims,
who found their voice, who found the courage, after years of
suffering in silence and isolation, to step into the light and say,
as one did, “This happened to me, and this is wrong” (Boston,

Globe, 2003).
And not only is it wrong, but it must stop.

CHAPTER XXV
OF CABBAGES AND
NATURE SPRITES
(FINDHORN COMMUNITY:
PETER AND EILEEN CADDY)
“The time has come,” the Caddys said

“To channel many thoughts:
Of Moray Firth—and trailer parks
Of tiny elves—and Scots—
Of why the cabbages grow large—
And whether Swedes are hot”
IN NOVEMBER OF 1962, Peter and Eileen Caddy settled with their three
young sons and a friend, Dorothy Maclean, near the coast of the Mo-
ray Firth in northeast Scotland. There they lived, down the road from
Aberdeen and Inverness, in a house trailer on a parcel of land destined
to become the first seed of the Findhorn Community.
Prior to that, Peter, a former military officer, had followed his
own guru-figure for five years—a woman who was also his second
wife, Sheena. To join them as a disciple, Eileen had left her own hus-
band and children. Soon after that departure, “stricken with guilt and
remorse,” she began hearing voices, i.e., “guidance.” The believed
source of those voices is obvious in the title of Eileen’s first book:
282
OF CABBAGES AND NATURE SPRITES 283
God Spoke to Me. Later presumed channelings by her included “trans-

missions from Saint-Germain [and] Sir Francis Bacon” (Hawken,
1976).
Peter and Eileen later split from Sheena and, by 1957, were
managing a hotel in Forres, Scotland, which building was later to be-
come part of the Findhorn community.
They were then transferred from there to another ailing hotel to
resurrect it. And, having been suddenly terminated from that position,
made their new home in the Findhorn Bay Caravan (i.e., Trailer)
Park, adjacent to a garbage dump.
In accord with Eileen’s inner guidance, the pioneers established
a small garden in the “sand and scrub” of the trailer park in 1965.
[T]o the astonishment of experts, their results were phenome-

nal, producing plants whose variety and vigor could not be
conventionally explained (Findhorn, 1980).
That “unconventional” success was indeed soon revealed to be

ostensibly due to the ability of community members, and Dorothy in
particular, to “talk to the plants” and nature spirits/devas. Additional
gardening advice came from an Edinburgh man who “had experiences
of nature beings, which took the form of elves and fauns, and ... Pan
himself” (Riddell, 1990).
The outcome of all that was the forty-pound cabbages for which
the community first became famous.
By the mid-’70s, however, when Peter stopped working in the
garden, many of the phenomenal aspects of the vegetation disap-
peared.
The growth here was fantastic to demonstrate to Peter Caddy

and to others that it was possible. Now we know it is possible
to work with the Nature Kingdom, but we no longer have the
need to produce a plant where it won’t normally grow (in
Hawken, 1976).
Barbara Ann Brennan, a contemporary American laying-on-of-

hands healer, describes (1993) relevant aspects of her own later ex-
tended stay in the Findhorn Community:
When I was there, I stood on a nature power point called

Randolph’s Leap, a place near Findhorn where the Druids are
supposed to have worshiped and communed with nature spir-
its. I asked to have access to the nature spirits.
[After] about a month ... I started seeing little nature spir-
its [or sprites] everywhere I went. They would follow me as I
walked around the property. They were always a bit shy and
would stay a few feet behind me, giggling.
Ancillary attempts, outside the main development of the com-

munity, were also made to contact UFOs and “space beings.”
In 1969, Findhorn attracted six hundred visitors ... all of them
from our own planet.
David Spangler and his female partner arrived in the early 1970s
to live at Findhorn for three years, as the last of the “founding fig-
ures” there, lecturing and giving channeled guidance. Their arrival
brought the community population into double digits, growing to
forty-five by the end of the year.
In those early days, until around 1972,
Peter would stride around finding fault with everyone. There

was nothing but endless work, from early in the morning until
late at night.... Young freaks escaping burnt-out lives in Lon-
don were verbally thrashed by Peter for the slightest deviation
from the rigid order and structure of the community (Hawken,
1976).
In 1973, the sixty-ish Peter’s heart opened ... to a young, Swed-

ish woman living in the community, with the ensuing reaction from
Eileen having the effect of throwing Findhorn into a period of uncer-
tainty. Though the potential extramarital relationship was never con-
summated, Peter and Eileen grew farther apart as the years passed.
The former eventually left the community in 1979.
One female member of the populace described the mid-’70s in
the Findhorn Community this way:
The energy level was very high, and a lot of music came out of
that time.... There was this universal energy of love, and all of
a sudden it could hit you with somebody else’s partner. Be-
cause there was an openness towards anything that God sends
in one’s direction, some people would then ... dive into these
relationships, and would find themselves in a tangle with no
clear way of handling the complications.
It was like an epidemic.... It really rocked the community
(Findhorn, 1980).
In spite of—or perhaps because of—such “love in the time of

cabbages,” by 1980 over three hundred people had been drawn to the
Findhorn Caravan Park.
Or the rocking “Findstock,” if you prefer.
Through all of that, Eileen’s guidance slowly disclosed the long-
term plans for the community:
I want you to see this center of light [i.e., Findhorn] as an ever-

growing cell of light. It started as a family group; it is now a
community; it will grow into a village, then a town and finally
into a vast city of light (Caddy, 1976).
Nor was the scope of that undertaking lost on the early founders,
or on those who have come since them:
In one form or another there has been a deep awareness that

what was being worked out [at Findhorn] was of supreme im-
portance to the whole world.
This could of course be just an inflated ego on the part of
those at Findhorn—or it could be a most daring and glorious
act of faith, that God had a vast plan for mankind which, if
known and followed, could lead to a new age, and that Find-
horn was a key point in that plan (Caddy, 1976).
The Findhorn Community plays a significant part in a revolu-

tion that is gently changing the world.... This revolution does
not “do” anything. It does not normally make headlines in any
of the news media, but it creates the conditions in which [love,
spirituality, cooperation and harmony] can flourish among
human beings. Perhaps it is responsible for the rather extraor-
dinary changes that, at the close of the ’80s, have laid the basis
for the end of the Cold War and the transformation of Eastern
Europe. But it has much more still to do (Riddell, 1990).
***
The present Findhorn community includes an independent Steiner

(i.e., “Waldorf”) school, providing additional alternative education for
the children there. Students are encouraged to learn at their own rate,
in a close relationship to a teacher who continues with a class from
one year to the next. By itself, that is undoubtedly a wonderful way to
structure an educational program. The Intimidation of the Waldorf
Kind article by Arno Frank (2000), however, raises serious concerns
about those schools in general, as does the information presented at
www.waldorfcritics.org:
Parents should be told that the science and history curriculum

will be based on Steiner’s reading of the “akashic record,” ac-
cording to which the “ancients” had clairvoyant powers which
Anthroposophic initiation may help students attain some day.
They should be told that loyal Steiner followers believe hu-
mans once lived on the lost continent of Atlantis.... They
should be told that teachers study a medieval scheme in which
race, blood, and the “four temperaments” will help them un-
derstand their students’ development (PLANS, 2004).
Steiner’s first Atlantean sub-race was named the Rmoahals.
When a Rmoahals man pronounced a word, this word devel-

oped a power similar to that of the object it designated. Be-
cause of this, words at that time were curative; they could ad-
vance the growth of plants, tame the rage of animals, and per-
form other similar functions (Steiner, 1959).
Rudolf Steiner himself (1861 – 1925), in his Atlantis and Le-

muria (1963), expounded on the details of our imagined lost history,
crediting the terrestrial atmosphere in the time of Atlantis as being
much more dense at that time, than it is at present.
The above-mentioned density of air is as certain for occult ex-

perience as any fact of today given by the senses can be.
Equally certain however is the fact, perhaps even more
inexplicable for contemporary physics and chemistry, that at
that time the water on the whole Earth was much thinner than
today....
[I]n the Lemurian and even in the Atlantean period,
stones and metals were much softer than later (Steiner, 1959).
We need not raise the question now as to whether such a con-

dition of density is compatible with the opinion held by mod-
ern science, for science and logical thought can ... never say
the final word as to what is possible (Steiner, 1963).
Having thus disposed of physics in his pursuit of a denser, thin-

ner and softer metaphysics, Steiner (1963) continued:
[T]he human body had been provided with an eye that now no
longer exists, but we have a reminder of this erstwhile condi-
tion in the myth of the One-Eyed Cyclops.
Nor was that the only discrepancy to be found between our

known world and the bodies of yore:
The forms of [the first] animals would, in the present day,

strike us as fabulous monsters, for their bodies (and this must
be carefully kept in mind) were of the nature of air....
Another group of physical beings had bodies which con-
sisted of air-ether, light-ether and water, and these were plant-
like beings....
“If I could talk to the plantimals....” Or be one:
[M]an lived as a plant being in the Sun itself (Steiner, 1959).
Steiner further claimed of Lemurian women:
Everything was animated for them and showed itself to them

in soul powers and apparitions.... That which impelled them to
their reaction were “inner voices,” or what plants, animals,
stones, wind and clouds, the whispering of the trees, and so on,
told them....
If with his consciousness man could raise himself into
[the] supersensible world, he would be able to greet the “ant or
bee spirit” there in full consciousness as his sister being. The

seer can actually do this.
It is, of course, only a small step from “ant and bee spirits” to
volcano and cloud spirits, etc.
Rudolf himself was the head of the German branch of the The-
osophical Society until being expelled from that in 1913 for “illegal”
(according to the rules of the Society) activities. From that split, he
founded his own Anthroposophical Society, beginning with fifty-five
ex-members of the TS, from which the Waldorf phenomenon in gen-
eral has grown.
Steiner had encountered Theosophy in the 1880s through the

writings of Sinnett and Blavatsky, most of which he later re-
jected—with the exception of The Secret Doctrine, which he
regarded as the most remarkable esoteric text (apart from his
own) published in modern times....
The audiences for [Steiner’s theosophical lectures] were
at first very small. Happily, Steiner showed no concern, claim-
ing that the audience was swelled by invisible spiritual beings
and the dead, eager for the occult knowledge they could not,
apparently, acquire in the Other World (Washington, 1995).
The Secret Doctrine was Madame Blavatsky’s anti-Darwinian

explanation of the origins of life on Earth, via a number (seven) of
“root races” purportedly descended from spiritual beings from the
moon. The book was presented as an explication of stanzas from the
little-known Book of Dzyan—itself written in the unknown-to-any-
linguist language of Senzar.
Steiner, meanwhile, taught the existence of a Lord of the Dark
Face, an evil entity by the name of Ahriman—the spirit of material-
ism. That disruptive being, he felt, “had been making trouble in the
world since 1879 when the Archangel Michael took over the divine
guidance of mankind and began a cosmic process of enlightenment”
(Washington, 1995).
Steiner (1947) further described the progressing student’s “as-
cent into the higher worlds” as involving a meeting with the “Guard-
ian of the Threshold”:
[T]he Guardian of the Threshold is an (astral) figure, revealing

itself to the student’s awakened higher sight.... It is a lower
magical process to make the Guardian of the Threshold physi-
cally visible also. That was attained by producing a cloud of
fine substance, a kind of frankincense resulting from a particu-
lar mixture of a number of substances. The developed power of
the magician is then able to mould the frankincense into shape,
animating it with the still unredeemed karma of the individ-
ual....
What is here indicated in narrative form must not be un-
derstood in the sense of an allegory, but as an experience of the
highest possible reality befalling the esoteric student.
On a more personal level, Rudolf averred:
The clairvoyant ... can describe, for every mode of thought and
for every law of nature, a form which expresses them. A re-
vengeful thought, for example, assumes an arrow-like, pronged
form, while a kindly thought is often formed like an opening
flower, and so on. Clear-cut, significant thoughts are regular
and symmetrical in form, while confused thoughts have wavy
outlines.
And speaking of “wavy outlines”:
Anthroposophical medicine seems to be based partly on magi-

cal theories of correspondence—for example cholera is a pun-
ishment for insufficient self-confidence and the pox for lack of
affection. Today the Anthroposophists run clinics, a mental
hospital, and a factory for medicines which has marketed a
cancer cure (Webb, 1976).
As to Steiner’s overall caliber of thought, then, Storr (1996)

summarizes:
His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence,

so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to con-
sider it delusional....
[H]is so-called thinking, his supposed power of super-
sensible perception, led to a vision of the world, the universe,
and of cosmic history which is entirely unsupported by any
evidence, which is at odds with practically everything which

modern physics and astronomy have revealed, and which is
more like science fiction than anything else.
In a somewhat gentler vein, Robert Carroll (2004d) concluded:
There is no question that Steiner made contributions in many

fields, but as a philosopher, scientist, and artist he rarely rises
above mediocrity and is singularly unoriginal.
The anti-Darwinian Ken Wilber (2000b), however, expressed his

own, more positive evaluation of poor Rudolf, in this way:
[Steiner] was an extraordinary pioneer ... and one of the most

comprehensive psychological and philosophical visionaries of
his time.
Indeed, Steiner’s credulous followers similarly believe him to

have been “a genius in twelve fields” (McDermott, 1984).
To be fair, Rudolf’s grounded philosophizing, as presented in the
first half of McDermott’s very selectively chosen (“veneer of acade-
mia,” etc.) Essential Steiner, is much more coherent than are his far-
ther flights of fancy. (McDermott himself was president of the Cali-
fornia Institute of Integral Studies [www.ciis.edu] for many years. For
the catty relationship between himself and the allegedly “evil, hated”
kw, see Wilber [2001c].)
Still, even given that limited coherence, one cannot help but no-
tice that Wilber, in Chart 4B of his (2000b) Integral Psychology,
gives a mapping of Steiner’s nine levels of reality to the “correlative
basic structures” of psychology in his own Four-Quadrant “Theory of
Everything.” (That same book is intended as a “textbook of transper-
sonal psychology.” Its mapped levels include astral bodies and the
like.) Yet, the perception of auras, if real, would come via the same
clairvoyant faculties and subtle bodies as would be used to read the
akashic records. Did Steiner then see auras clearly, but hallucinate his
purported akashic readings? Or was he equally imagining both? Ei-
ther way, how does Wilber justify mapping Steiner’s levels of reality
to his own theories, while ignoring the remainder of what Steiner de-
voutly claims to have experienced through the same purported
means?
Regardless, Velikovsky would surely be proud. For, Wilber’s

endorsement of Steiner means either that he has read so little of Ru-
dolf’s work that he is unaware of the “farther reaches” of it ... or that
he is aware of those fantasies-presented-as-fact, but still considers the
man to be an insightful “visionary” and “extraordinary pioneer” in
(clairvoyance-based) psychology and philosophy.
Given Wilber’s history with Da’s coronas and shabd yoga, those
two options seem equally plausible. (Wilber has evidently hardly read
into the latter yoga at all, yet still presents himself as an expert, fit to
determine who the top yogis of that path are [see Lane, 1996].)
And note again how kw’s complimentary appraisal of Steiner is,
as usual, offered as no mere opinion, but is rather given as if it were
an indisputable fact—“Thus spake the Oracle of Boulder.” In reality,
however, it is emphatically No Such Thing, especially with regard to
Steiner’s philosophy,
If you’re going to be an oracle, it behooves you to get it right.
***
The continual buzz of activity throughout a community such as Find-

horn could, of course, easily detract from one’s meditations. Not one
to be thus distracted, Eileen Caddy sought guidance for herself as to
where to find a small, quiet place, away from the crowded living con-
ditions.
[S]he asked within and the voice, in a joyous piece of guid-

ance, replied: “Why don’t you go down to the public toilets?
You will find perfect peace there.”
The little toilet block referred to has been preserved and
is now a herbal apothecary and wholefood café (Riddell,
1990).
If such preservation seems to be excessively reverential, note

that traditional Tibetan medicine goes even further, at times contain-
ing small amounts of lama (not llama) ... um....
[Seventeenth-century Austrian Jesuit cleric Johann] Grueber

was particularly repulsed by the custom of the laity’s eating
“curative pills” containing the Dalai Lama’s excrement
(Schell, 2001).
Or, in the vernacular: “holy shit.”
A hundred years ago, rumors that the feces of the Dalai

Lama—the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists—had benefi-
cial properties prompted the UK’s Surgeon General to analyze
them in the interests of science. They contained nothing re-
markable, he concluded. Just as well: According to a spokes-
person at the UK-based Tibet Foundation, “These days you
can’t even buy the Dalai Lama’s used clothes, never mind his
excrement” (Toscani, 2000).
And they call that progress!
When the doctor [treating David Bohm—the Dalai Lama’s

“physics teacher”—for “thick blood” in Switzerland] indicated
that he would send to Dharamsala for medication, the Dalai
Lama insisted that the treatment should begin immediately. He
took Precious Tablets, wrapped in silk, from a pouch in his
room and instructed Saral [Bohm’s wife] on how they should
be prepared. Bohm found their taste revolting (Peat, 1997).
“Nityananda the Poo,” however, would surely have approved—

and perhaps even grabbed a mouthful.
Along those same lines, in later years Findhorn residents experi-
enced a sewage backup, flooding the toilets and bathtubs of the Cad-
dys’ former hotel in Cluny Hills, now owned and operated by the
Findhorn Foundation as a community residence. Two weeks worth of
attempts to find the relevant sewage lines—including, in desperation,
searching via the use of divining rods and pendulums—failed to dis-
close the source of the blockage.
It became increasingly clear that the sewer blockage was a

symbolic way of showing us something about our life.
A channeling was received. It told us we had become too
concerned with outer forms, neglecting our spiritual connec-
tion. The sewage began to flood the garden. [Hence, “love in
the time of cabbages and cholera.”] We organized a meeting
and agreed that each member would make a personal commit-
ment to their own spiritual development. In the afternoon we
shared what we had individually decided. At 4 p.m., when the
meeting ended, the sewers were unblocked. They had un-

blocked themselves! (Riddell, 1990).
Verily, “the Lord doth work in mysterious ways,” etc. As do His

“avatars”:
To see if he had become proud after becoming a big guru,

Ramakrishna went to slum areas and washed the toilets with
his hair (Satchidananda, in [Mandelkorn, 1978]).
***
As time went on, it became ever clearer to Eileen and Peter

that they were ... the spearhead of a new age. They were pio-
neering a new way of living which would spread throughout
the world and give new hope for the future. People would
come from every land to learn this new way and then go back
to live it out wherever they might be....
Gradually the greatness of the task they had undertaken
became clearer to Peter and Eileen and those who were with
them. Findhorn was nothing less than the growing tip of hu-
manity (Caddy, 1976).
To keep one’s perspective in the midst of such pioneering, “growing

tip of humanity” excitement, however, is no easy task ... as every
other community which has ever harbored a similarly grandiose mis-
sion could testify.
W. Brugh Joy, author of Joy’s Way, was then invited to give a
talk at Findhorn in 1980, about what he “sensed was ahead for the
community as a whole,” to a group of participants preparing to enter
communal life there. Not surprisingly, the urge to address those un-
spoken issues proved too strong to resist:
I talked about the consequences of feeling “special” and how

doing battle against the “evils of the world” not only creates
the “enemy,” but is actually a projection of the darker aspects
of the community onto the world screen. Needless to say, the
talk was not popular and I was fast falling into the “unwelcome
guest” category....
Despite assertions by most partisans of the New Age that

they are promoting such virtues as selfless service to the world,
New Age beliefs in the specialness and innocence of the New
Age are, in my opinion, regressive ... toward the infantile, if
not the fetal. Such ideation tends to be self-centered (Joy,
1990).
Some days later, the “community poet”—a position surely taken

straight out of Douglas Adams’ writings—responded, onstage, after
some skits and singing, to Joy’s earlier talk.
In venomous poetry, powerful and afire with wrathful right-

eousness, he unleashed the dark feelings and destructive forces
of the community. The objects of his rage were the Americans
in general and myself in particular. We were portrayed in
terms that would make fecal material seem sunny by compari-
son. His attack centered around money and power ... the dark
side of any endeavor that wears the mask of great good and
service. The only thing explicitly missing was sex, except he
covered that by using the words “fuck” and “fucking” with an
extraordinary frequency (Joy, 1990).
And this was scarcely odd, because....

Of course, such an isolated outburst in no way invalidates the
overall good done within and by the community. That is so particu-
larly since the general response to Joy’s speech and the poet’s coun-
ter-attack, at least in public, seems to have been fairly mature. That is,
unlike what we might have expected to see from some of the “Rude
Boys” in this world, Joy was certainly not run off the property for his
comments. Nor was he stripped naked or called a “bottom feeder” by
the respected leaders of the community. By contrast, were such criti-
cisms as Joy’s directed toward the divine guru-figure or holy ashram
of the average disciple, the latter would more often than not consider
them to be violently blasphemous.
In a way, though, one could still actually be surprised, overall,
by that temperate response. For, considering the grandiose perspec-
tive from which the community was founded, coupled with Peter
Caddy’s authoritarian control during the first decade of its existence,
things could have turned out much worse. As it currently stands,
however, Findhorn welcomes more than 14,000 guests each year for
temporary work retreats or to one of several hundred adult classes

taught year-round by New Age personages such as the “spiritual
healer” Caroline Myss. It also exists as part of a global network of
sustainable “Ecovillages.”
Apparently, then, not every foray into spiritually based commu-
nity living need end in disaster. Undoubtedly, though, such a diverse
group of “believers” as exist in Findhorn would have far less potential
for messing up a community than if they were all following the same
“sage,” i.e., if they all shared and reinforced the same “madness” in
each other. After all, a mixed group of people, even if they were each
totally conforming to the tenets and expected behaviors of their re-
spective paths, would still effectively create a diverse population of
ideas and perspectives.
A more heterogeneous group of people living together in a

community I could not have imagined (Hawken, 1976).
And, as in agriculture, such a varied population is less likely to

be devastatingly affected by any specific pathology than is a homoge-
neous one.
The Findhorn community, further, is a relatively “feel-good,
New Age” one. It has thus never placed any primary emphasis on
“destroying the ego” as a means to God-realization. Consequently, it
has not sanctioned that easy outlet for sadistic behavior toward others,
as if it were “for their own good” as a cover for simply exacting re-
spect and obedience from them, to the degree which one finds in the
typical ashram.
Probably of equal or greater importance, though, was the fading-
out of the Caddys’ influence as the community grew. That was done,
surprisingly, in response to Eileen’s own received “guidance,” in one
of the most generous sharings of power that one will ever find in a
community, whether spiritual or otherwise.
It will also have helped that Findhorn has never been a monastic
environment. For, that freedom itself removes a large part of the po-
tential for suppression, repression/projection, scandals and cover-ups.
There is also a relative absence of both penalties for leaving and
of a not merely grandiose but spiritually “liberating” benefit to one-
self for staying. That is, unlike most of the other communities we
have met herein, Findhorn seems to have placed “saving the world”—
via the growth of the community into a town, a village, and then a
“vast city of light”—ahead of “saving oneself.” And one can walk
away from the former when the going gets tough, much more easily
than one could turn one’s back on the latter, for having far less of a
personal stake in it. After all, throwing up one’s hands and allowing
the world to go to hell in a handbasket is one thing; throwing away
one’s “only chance for enlightenment in this lifetime,” through dis-
obedience or abandonment of a spiritual path, is quite another.
All of the above “missing” elements in Findhorn are generally
absolutely central to any “authentic, spiritually transformative” ash-
ram, as a closed society where “really serious” disciples will remain
for the rest of their lives. With stunning irony, then, it is very proba-
bly the lack of all of those things in Findhorn which have made it into
an (according to present indications) “safe” environment. (But, see
also Stephen Castro’s [1996] Hypocrisy and Dissent Within the Find-
horn Foundation, for further information in that regard.)
The now relatively democratic management of the community—
with feedback and real “checks and balances” to keep the rulers ac-
countable to those they rule over—will also have greatly helped.
Of course, even there:
We have also heard from people who had gone to the commu-
nity in response to something they had read or heard, only to
discover that its reality was not what they had expected. Most
of these reports indicated a disappointment that, in the minds
of these people, Findhorn was not living up to the beautiful
ideals which it proclaimed....
[One] young man kept alternating between staying in
London and living at Findhorn. Finally, despairing of his abil-
ity to adapt to Findhorn, he told us that emotionally it was a
worse jungle than London (Findhorn, 1980).
Caveat meditator.
In any case, one cannot help but wonder what might have hap-
pened had the already geriatric Peter Caddy had his way with that
Swedish girl three decades ago. Or, had he received explicit inner
guidance himself—thus qualifying as a guru-figure on top of his ex-
isting authoritarian tendencies, and being in a position to inform oth-
ers of “God’s will,” particularly as it may have related to the young
blond lady. Indeed, in that scenario, there might now be nothing left
to mark the spot where Findhorn once stood, nor even a “community
poet” to commemorate the occasion in ribald verse.
Verse, that is, such as the following:
There once was a Scotsman named Caddy

A well-nigh impassioned brute laddie
He spied a young Swede
Said, “She’s got what I need”
Now he’s nine months from being a daddy
CHAPTER XXVI
... TO A NUNNERY
(PARAMAHANSA YOGANANDA)
Nearly everyone is familiar with those three little monkey-

figures that depict the maxim, “See no evil, hear no evil, speak
no evil.” I emphasize the positive approach: “See that which is
good, hear that which is good, speak that which is good.” And
smell, taste, and feel that which is good; think that which is
good; love that which is good. Be enthroned in the castle of
goodness, and your memories will be like beautiful flowers in
a garden of noble dreams (Yogananda, 1986).
For all future time, Paramahansa Yogananda ... will be re-

garded as one of the very greatest of India’s ambassadors of
the Higher Culture to the New World (W. Y. Evans-Wentz, in
[Yogananda, 1976]).
PARAMAHANSA YOGANANDA WAS the first yoga master from India to

spend the greater part of his life in North America.
Born in northeast India near the Himalayan border in 1893, Yo-
gananda began practicing kriya yoga in his early years, and met his
guru, Sri Yukteswar, at age seventeen.
Following a prophetic vision, and at the direction of Yukteswar,
Yogananda accepted an invitation to speak at the Congress of Reli-
gious Liberals in Boston, in the autumn of 1920. He remained in
298
... TO A NUNNERY 299
America following that successful debut, establishing Self-Realiza-

tion Fellowship (SRF) and its headquarters, now named the “Mother
Center,” in an abandoned former hotel atop Mount Washington in Los
Angeles, in 1925. As a “Church of all Religions,” SRF attempts to
embrace the “underlying truth of all religions,” with particular em-
phasis on yoga/Hinduism and Christianity. Membership numbers are
classified, but reasonable guesses range from 25,000 to 100,000 cur-
rently active members.
The enterprising young yogi spent the years from 1925 to 1936
lecturing to capacity crowds in halls throughout America, spreading
knowledge of the “holy science” of kriya yoga.
As far as the channels through which one may receive his variant
of that particular set of techniques of meditation, Yogananda ex-
plained in his (1998) Autobiography:
The actual technique should be learned from an authorized

Kriyaban (kriya yogi) of Self-Realization Fellowship (Yogoda
Satsanga Society of India).
Earlier versions of the same book, however, within the three edi-
tions published while Yogananda was still alive, placed far less re-
strictions on who may give that initiation:
The actual technique [of kriya yoga] must be learned from a

Kriyaban or kriya yogi (Yogananda, 1946).
More recently, SRF (in Rawlinson, 1997) stated their position

regarding the importance of their particular line of gurus in effecting
the spiritual progress of the disciple:
Some take kriya yoga and become fully satisfied and forget
about the link of masters—they will never reach God.
The reader may then ponder for him- or herself as to what possi-
ble reasons any organization could have for thus restricting, to itself,
the dissemination of the techniques of its founder, after the latter’s
death, when no such restriction was put in place during his life. SRF’s
position, of course, is that every change to Yogananda’s writings
since his passing has been made on the basis of instructions given by
him while he was still alive, and done simply to “clarify and re-
phrase” the text. For my own part, I do not find that claim at all con-
vincing. Indeed, the posthumously ham-handed evisceration of his
Whispers From Eternity poetry alone (see Dakota, 1998)—being sub-
jected to brutal and unnecessary editing which no poetic soul could
ever countenance—would cast it in doubt.
Regardless, the kriya yoga technique itself is actually not nearly
as “top secret” as SRF presents it as being. Rather, both of the pre-
liminary techniques leading up to kriya proper are widely known in
India. Of those, the “Om” technique is essentially just an internally
chanted mantra, while the “Hong-Sau” technique/mantra is given in
Chapter 7 of Radha’s (1978) Kundalini Yoga for the West. (Radha
herself was a disciple of Satchidananda’s guru, Swami Sivananda,
and operated an ashram in that lineage in British Columbia, Canada.)
Much of the first stage of the kriya technique itself further exists in
Chapter 9 of the same book. Yogananda’s preliminary “Energization
Exercises,” too, are very similar to ones given later by Brennan
(1987).
Ironically, in spite of their evidently opposite attitudes toward
the “secrecy” of those techniques, Sivananda’s ashram and SRF have
long been friendly with each other.
Swami Sivananda himself (1887 – 1963), in addition to founding
the Divine Life Society, wrote over three hundred books. That is
hardly surprising, given his exalted spiritual state:
I have seen God myself. I have negated name and form, and
what remains is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss and nothing else. I
behold God everywhere. There is no veil. I am one. There is no
duality. I rest in my own self. My bliss is beyond description.
The World of dream is gone. I alone exist (Sivananda, 1958).
People consider [Sivananda] to be a Shiva avatar, incarnation

(Gyan, 1980).
Swamiji was a phenomenon. He was described as a “symbol of

holiness,” a “walking, talking God on Earth” (Ananthanara-
yanan, 1970).
Of course, no “walking, talking God” would grace this planet

without promulgating his own skewed set of unsubstantiated beliefs:
Swami Sivananda has said that every woman whom a man

lures into his bed must in some lifetime become his lawful
wife (Radha, 1992).
The late Swami Sivananda of [Rishikesh], to my mind the

most grotesque product of the Hindu Renaissance, advised
people to write their “spiritual diaries”; and in oral instruc-
tions, he told Indian and Western disciples to write down how
often they masturbated.... [O]r, as one male disciple told me,
“make a list of number of times when you use hand for pleas-
ure, and check it like double book keeping against number of
times when you renounced use of hand” (Bharati, 1976).
And they say accountants don’t know how to have fun!

Elsewhere in the same book, Swami Bharati—the highly opin-
ionated monk of the Ramakrishna Order whom we have met earlier in
some of his kinder moments—categorized Sivananda as a “pseudo-
mystic ... fat and smiling.” (Of the Maharishi, by contrast, Bharati
stated: “I have no reason to doubt that he is a genuine mystic.... Were
it not for the additional claims that Mahesh Yogi and his disciples
make for their brand of mini-yoga [regarding ‘world peace,’ etc.],
their product would be just as good as any other yoga discipline well
done.” So, you see, no one really knows what [if any] is valid and
what isn’t, even though they all pretend to know.)
Further venting his own instructive anger and anguish solely for
the compassionate benefit of others, Bharati (1976) offered a compa-
rable opinion of Vivekananda:
The “four kinds of yoga” notion goes back, entirely, and with-
out any mitigating circumstances, to Swami Vivekananda’s
four dangerous little booklets entitled Raja-yoga, Karma-yoga,
Jnana-yoga, and Bhakti-yoga. [Those titles and terms refer to
“royal,” “service,” “wisdom” and “devotional” yoga, respec-
tively.] These are incredibly naïve, incredibly short excerpts
from Indian literature in translations, rehashed in his talks in
America and elsewhere....
I am certain that Vivekananda has done more harm than
good to the seekers of mystical knowledge.... Vivekananda’s
concept of raja yoga ... is dysfunctional.
Bharati’s own contributions to the understanding of mysticism,

however, themselves tended toward the insignificant side. Whatever
mysticism may be—from psychosis to the valid perception of higher
levels of reality than the physical—there is, in my opinion, no meas-
urable chance of it fitting into Bharati’s view of things. Even his in-
sistence that the mystical “zero-experience,” of the “oneness” of the
individual and cosmic soul, must be only temporary and incapacitat-
ing, is relatively belied by Wilber’s claim to have experienced the
One Taste state continuously for half a decade.
Interestingly, Bharati (1974) regarded Yogananda as a “phony,”
lumping him in with T. Lobsang Rampa and the sorcerer Carlos Cas-
taneda. He simultaneously, though, took Chögyam Trungpa as having
taught “authentic Tibetan Buddhism,” presumably even in the midst
of that guru’s penchant for “stripping the disciples.” I do not claim to
know how to find sense in that position. But then, unlike Bharati and
his admired, soporific friend, Herbert V. Guenther, I am not a scholar.
And indeed, to devote one’s life to becoming an expert in the details
of a pile of sanctioned baloney, then trashing anyone who doesn’t buy
into the same brand of foolishness, strikes me as being one of the
most absurd ways in which to waste a life.
At any rate, Paramahansa Yogananda—whether phony or not—
slowly accumulated a core of close disciples as the years passed, and
thus began a monastic order in his own Swami lineage. One such
early “direct disciple,” Faye Wright, began following the yogi in the
early 1930s, entering the ashrams in her late teens. Now known as
Daya Mata, she figures significantly in contemporary SRF culture, as
the current lifetime president of Self-Realization Fellowship.
Retiring from his cross-country lecture tours, Yogananda spent
much of the 1940s in seclusion in his Encinitas hermitage—adjacent
to the famed “Swami’s Point” surfing beach there. In that environ-
ment, he wrote his Autobiography of a Yogi, a perennial “sleeper”
best-seller among books on spirituality, generally considered to be
among the “Top 100” spiritual books of the twentieth century.
[The Autobiography is] widely regarded as a classic introduc-

tion to yoga and Eastern thought (Ram Dass, 1990).
Few books in spiritual literature compare to Paramahansa

Yogananda’s Autobiography of a Yogi. It is one of those rare
works that in a single reading can transform the reader’s entire

outlook on life. Since its initial printing in 1946, Yogananda’s
Autobiography has continued to enthrall seekers with its fasci-
nating tales of miracles, saints and astral heavens (Lane, 1995).
Autobiography of a Yogi is regarded as an Upanishad of the

new age.... We in India have watched with wonder and fasci-
nation the phenomenal spread of the popularity of this book
about India’s saints and philosophy. We have felt great satis-
faction and pride that the immortal nectar of India’s Sanatan
Dharma, the eternal laws of truth, has been stored in the
golden chalice of Autobiography of a Yogi (in Ghosh, 1980).
No book so polarized the West about India and its culture as

this one. For those who liked it, their passion went beyond
words. For those who found it an incredible mishmash, the
high opinions they had been harboring about Indian thought
suddenly seemed to have become wobbly (Arya, 2004).
Interestingly, although Yogananda’s writings merit only a single

quotation in Wilber’s (1983) life’s work, both Adi Da (1995) and An-
drew Cohen were much influenced by the Autobiography early in
their spiritual careers. Indeed, Cohen obviously derived the title of his
(1992) Autobiography of an Awakening from Yogananda’s earlier life
story. For what it’s worth.
The Autobiography contains numerous claims of miraculous
healings, levitation, bilocation and raising of the dead by various
members in the SRF line of gurus, and others of Yogananda’s ac-
quaintance.
With less of an eye toward the probability of such miracles oc-
curring, however, the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung—who himself
spent time in India—had praised the study of yoga in general (as dis-
tinct from its practical application, which he explicitly discouraged):
Quite apart from the charm of the new and the fascination of
the half-understood, there is good cause for yoga to have many
adherents. It offers the possibility of controllable experience
and thus satisfies the scientific need for “facts”; and, besides
this, by reason of its breadth and depth, its venerable age, its
doctrine and method, which include every phase of life, it

promises undreamed-of possibilities (in Yogananda, 1946).
The phrase “undreamed-of possibilities” has since been adopted

by SRF as the title of an introductory booklet distributed in their
churches and elsewhere. Jung’s attitude toward Yogananda’s writings
in particular, however, was far less of a marketing department’s
dream:
Paramahansa Yogananda’s Autobiography of a Yogi ... pro-

voked Jung’s sarcasm because its cream puff idealism con-
tained not a single practical “antidote to disastrous population
explosion and traffic jams and the threat of starvation, [a book]
so rich in vitamins that albumen, carbohydrates, and such like
banalities become superogatory.... Happy India!” (Paine,
1998).
Jung, though, is an interesting study himself:
The brilliant thinker Carl Jung’s opportunistic support of the

Nazis ... is amply documented. In 1933 he became president of
the New German Society of Psychotherapy. Soon thereafter,
he wrote the following vicious nonsense (seldom mentioned by
his admirers nowadays):
The Jews have this similarity common with women:

as the physically weaker one they must aim at the
gaps in the opponent’s defenses ... the Arian [sic] un-
conscious has a higher potential than the Jewish
(Askenasy, 1978).
In any case, the Autobiography itself is dedicated to the “Ameri-

can saint” and prodigious horticulturalist Luther Burbank (1849 –
1926). Yogananda began visiting Burbank in 1924, and the latter in
return endorsed Paramahansa’s ideas on education. (The Burbank
potato is named after Luther; Burbank, California, however, is not.)
Interestingly, Burbank’s mother had gone to school with the girl
(Mary Sawyer) upon whose experiences the “Mary Had a Little
Lamb” poem is based.
Yogananda (1946; italics added) expressed his positive feelings

toward Luther as follows:
[Burbank’s] heart was fathomlessly deep, long acquainted with

humility, patience, sacrifice.... The modesty with which he
wore his scientific fame repeatedly reminded me of the trees
that bend low with the burden of ripening fruits; it is the barren
tree that lifts its head high in an empty boast.
Given that glowing evaluation, however, descriptions of Bur-

bank’s character which go contrary to what one might expect from a
“humble, modest saint” become very relevant. Thus:
Conflicting with the independence conferred by his self-esteem

was his love of approval by others. Though he would do noth-
ing dishonest to earn such approval (for that would have
brought self-condemnation), he eagerly accepted it as no more
than his due. “There are striking instances,” says [fellow
horticulturalist and writer George] Shull, “in which the combi-
nation of these two dominant traits produces one instant the
most profound modesty and the next instant almost blatant
self-praise” (Dreyer, 1975).
Indeed, by 1908, Burbank had come to the immodest conclusion

that, having surpassed Darwin in the number of plants he had raised,
he was “therefore”
“the greatest authority on plant life that had ever lived.” This
being the case, he felt that he was better qualified than anyone
else to pronounce on the subject of evolution (Dreyer, 1975).
On that same subject, however: Burbank believed in the inheri-

tance of only acquired traits, and was himself actually regarded by
the Soviet quack geneticist Lysenko as being one of “the best biolo-
gists.” Notwithstanding that unfortunate association with such an un-
scientific protégé of Stalin, Shull (in Dreyer, 1975) offered this opin-
ion of Luther’s claims in general:
[Burbank] had an “exaggeration coefficient” of about ten ... all

his figures should be divided by this number to get an ap-
proximation of the truth.
So it goes when one is the “Einstein of horticulture,” of the spe-

cies exaggeratus wilberus—although Einstein himself, unlike others
we have seen, had far too great a devotion to truth to ever counte-
nance such egregious departure from the facts, in his own character.
Of course, were anyone to display such characteristics as the
above without having been titled as a “modest, humble saint” by a
great yoga master or the like, the same behaviors would be seen as the
height of ego. Indeed, a South African customer—H. E. V. Pickstone
—who visited Burbank in 1904 and spent the day with him, had this
to say:
I was disappointed with his personality ... I found him too

much of an egoist ... I do not think he can be considered a great
man from any angle (in Dreyer, 1975).
Regardless, Burbank not only suggested that he had aided the

development of his plants by sending them “thoughts of love,” but
believed himself to be psychic. Indeed, he “insisted that he possessed
the ability to heal by a laying-on of hands, citing several cases in
which he had employed it” (Dreyer, 1975). Those “healings” were
given both to humans and to ailing plants.
***
Regarding the discipline given by Yogananda to his disciples: Durga

Mata (1992) relates that at one point in 1948, when Yogananda was in
a very high state of samadhi, he talked aloud to what he took to be a
vision of the Divine Mother. The latter would then answer back in
Yogananda’s own voice ... laying out the petty flaws of the disciples
present and absent, against Yogananda’s entreaties not to punish
them.
Of course, if Yogananda really was conversing with the cosmic
Feminine force underlying all creation, one could hardly find fault
with any of that criticism. One cannot, after all, “second guess” God.
If....
God Herself spending time criticizing others who weren’t even

present, and threatening punishment on the ones who were there, for
utterly minor exhibitions of selfishness, though, does seem more than
a bit odd. It is, indeed, more consistent with Yogananda’s own per-
sonality than with what one might expect from “God”:
[Shelly Trimmer] spent about a year with [Yogananda] at the

SRF headquarters in Los Angeles but then left.... Although he
has retained great affection and respect for Yogananda, he also
acknowledges his weaknesses. “He loved to order women
about—after all he was a Hindu.... He had a violent temper and
was a little bit arrogant” (Rawlinson, 1997).
***
It is well known that Yogananda took great delight in the technologi-

cal innovations of his day, including the garbage disposal. Less cele-
brated are his own alleged contributions to the progress of science and
technology, as per Walters (2002):
I would say that Paramhansa [sic] Yogananda was a prophet

for the New Age. Monasteries? yes, but far more than that....
In pursuit of universal upliftment [he] spoke, in private
conversation with me, of certain inventions he had inspired, or
in one case discovered among practices in India and else-
where.... He even said he’d introduced the concept of covers
on toilet seats.
It is not easy to know how to react to such a claim. Nor is it easy

to know where to rank it in comparison with the scatological inspira-
tions of Eileen Caddy, Bhagawan Nityananda or the Dalai Lama, for
example.
Perhaps it is enough to simply say, “Jai, guru. Jai.”
***
Of course, no guru could have worked for years in Los Angeles with-
out accumulating a few “star” disciples. Famous followers and ac-
quaintances of Yogananda, then, have included Greta Garbo (who
also frequented the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Vedanta Center in
Hollywood) and the actor Dennis Weaver (Gunsmoke). The latter

used to give monthly sermons at the SRF Lake Shrine temple, located
where L.A.’s Sunset Boulevard meets the Pacific Ocean, near Malibu.
A stone sarcophagus in that same park-like setting contains the
only portion of Mahatma Gandhi’s ashes to exist outside of India.
(Yogananda claims in the Autobiography to have initiated Gandhi
into kriya yoga in 1935. There is much reason, however, to question
whether the Mahatma actually practiced that technique on any regular
basis afterward.) Of course, it is actually against Hindu religious prac-
tice to keep the ashes of a departed soul for display, as opposed to
scattering them into bodies of water: “When the ashes are kept on the
land, the belief is that the soul remains caught on Earth and is never
released into the ‘afterlife.’” Or, alternatively, to remove any of the
ashes of the deceased is regarded as similar to taking a limb from a
live individual (Strelley, 1987).
Be that as it may, Supertramp’s Roger Hodgson once wrote a
song—“Babaji,” from 1977’s Even in the Quietest Moments album—
inspired by Yogananda’s teachings. In that case, the lyrics were moti-
vated by the Himalayan guru upon whose behest kriya yoga was
given to the world, through Yogananda for one. Hodgson further
spent time at the northern California “Ananda” ashram of one of Yo-
gananda’s direct disciples—J. Donald Walters, a.k.a. Kriyananda. His
sister Caroline has resided in the same community. Indeed, Roger met
his future wife, Karuna, when the latter was living in a teepee in that
very ashram.
George Harrison, although not himself a disciple of Yogananda,
was interviewed for SRF’s “Lake Shrine” video, quoting there from
Sri Yukteswar’s (1977) book, The Holy Science. (Ravi Shankar was
featured in the same film. Shankar introduced George to Yogananda’s
writings in 1966, and has since taken on guru-like proportions him-
self, with his followers comparing him to Jesus and Krishna [Salkin,
2002].) At Harrison’s prompting, images of four of the SRF line of
gurus—Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar and Yogananda—
were included on the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s album cover collage. (Je-
sus was omitted so as to not further aggravate public religious feel-
ings still raw from Lennon’s “the Beatles are more popular than Jesus
Christ” observation.) References to Yogananda in Harrison’s solo
work include the songs “Dear One,” “Life Itself” and “Fish on the
Sand.” Harrison’s family further donated the U.S. proceeds from the
re-release, in early 2002, of his “My Sweet Lord” single, to SRF.
Madonna—yes, that Madonna, again—has likewise spoken posi-
tively of Yogananda’s Autobiography. Pamela Anderson (2005) her-
self has swooned top-heavily over Paramahansa’s (1986) Divine Ro-
mance. And the brilliant comedian/actor Robin Williams—a friend of
both George Harrison and Christopher Reeve, having roomed at Juil-
liard with the latter—actually subscribed to at least part of the SRF
Lessons series. That, at least, according to a former-Deadhead monk
whom I met during my own otherwise-unpleasant stay in the SRF
ashrams, which will be detailed later on.
Gary “Dream Weaver” Wright—another friend of Harrison’s—
has also been rumored to be an SRF member.
The King of Rock and Roll, too, found inspiration in the kriya
yoga path:
Elvis loved material by guru Paramahansa Yogananda, the

Hindu founder of the Self-Realization Fellowship (Cloud,
2000).
Following Yogananda’s passing, Presley—whom we may dub a

hillolayavatar, or “incarnation of rock and roll”—actually made nu-
merous phone calls and trips, over a twelve-year period, to see SRF’s
Daya Mata. (Apparently she reminded him of his deceased mother, as
did the Theosophical Society’s famously unkempt and grotesquely
obese Madame Blavatsky.) Indeed, the Meditation Garden at Grace-
land—where Elvis came to be buried—is said to have been inspired
by SRF’s Lake Shrine (Mason, 2003). Elvis actually “took this spiri-
tual inquiry so seriously that he considered devoting the rest of his
life to it by becoming a monk” (Hajdu, 2003).
Ironically, as we have seen, had Presley taken such a step, it
needn’t have negatively impacted his sex life at all.
Elvis was famed for, among other things, his ownership of a pink
1955 Cadillac. And amazingly, it has been reported—though also
later disputed, in terms of its (possibly re-painted?) color—that Daya
Mata’s normal means of transportation to the SRF Mother Center
atop Mount Washington in Los Angeles is via a fifteen-minute com-
mute in a “vintage pink Cadillac.” (That drive is from a nearby mil-
lion-dollar “palace in the suburban Himalayas,” at 200 South Canon
Avenue in Sierra Madre. The house itself is said to have been a 1966
gift from the late billionaire tobacco heiress, Doris Duke [Russell,
2001].)
The present author, however, has no information to suggest that
those two are actually the same car. Indeed, it would perhaps be just
as well if it weren’t the same vehicle. For, the potential irony of a
bunch of nuns driving around in a car full of “good vibrations” from a
back seat on which The King must have had his way with how many
nubile girls—literally a different one every night, in his younger days
—is just too delicious to consider.
***
No small amount of any sage’s “proof” of his divinity invariably

comes from his working of purported miracles, even if he may simul-
taneously downplay their importance as mere “signs and wonders.”
Thus:
[Yogananda] said that he knew how to walk on fire, and to go

without eating indefinitely, but that God did not want him to
perform such feats, for his mission was to teach and bring
souls back to God through kriya yoga and love (Mata, 1992).
“Walking on fire,” however, is wholly explicable in terms of the

known laws of physics. Indeed, according to scientists, it neither re-
quires nor benefits from any advanced “mind over matter” mental
preparation or the like. In fact, as early as the 1930s—well within
Yogananda’s lifetime—the Council for Psychical Research “issued
reports stating that religious faith and supernatural powers were unre-
lated to firewalking.” Instead, they ascribed the success in that en-
deavor to the “low thermal conductivity of the burning wood, and the
relatively small amount of time that contact occurs between the hot
coals and a participant’s feet” (Nisbet, 2000).
In Fiji, Hawaii, and Japan, a variation of the stunt is performed

on lava stone, which also [like hot coals] has very poor con-
ductivity and low specific heat, and is similar to the “heat
shield” ceramic used on the outer skin of the space shuttle
(Randi, 1995).
One scientific investigation carried out by Chas R. Darling and

reported in Nature, Sept. 28, 1935, consisted of pressing a
thermal junction on to the fire intermittently so as to imitate
the period of contact of each foot and the interval between
each step. [A] number of separated [sic] trials showed a rise of
15 – 20 °C in the junction—conclusive proof that the feet of
the performer would not be hot enough for blistering to occur
(Edwards, 1994).
For further explanation, see Carroll (2004c), Nixon (2004),

Kjernsmo (1997) and Willey (2002).
Still, “don’t try it at home.”
Regarding the inedia which the portly Yogananda claimed for
himself, it is interesting to note that he vouched for a similar talent for
the famed Catholic stigmatist Therese Neumann. Indeed, he even
credited her a comparable supposed basis to his own, in the purported
chakric ingestion of subtle energies.
In support of the yogi’s ostensible first-hand knowledge of Neu-
mann’s genuineness and metaphysical means of living “by God’s
light,” we learn that Therese’s local German bishop
instigated a surveillance in 1927 that purportedly produced de-

finitive evidence in favor of her claims, but the observations
were only for fifteen days. Therese’s urine was monitored dur-
ing this time and for the following fortnight. A study of the re-
sults ... is as expected for the period of observation (Nickell,
1998).
However—
the post-observation data [see Wilson, 1988] were indicative of

“a return to normal, suggesting that once Therese was no
longer subject to round-the-clock observation, she went back
to normal food and drink intake.” Magnifying the suspicion
was Therese’s subsequent refusal to undergo further surveil-
lance (Nickell, 1998).
Neumann’s claimed stigmata fares only marginally better, in

spite of Yogananda’s (1946) equal certainty as to its validity:
Therese showed me a little, square, freshly healed wound on

each of her palms. On the back of each hand, she pointed out a
smaller, crescent-shaped wound, freshly healed. Each wound
went straight through the hand. [That must be a mere assump-
tion on Yogananda’s part, as he would not have physically
verified that the wound was continuous from front to back, by
passing anything through it.] The sight brought to my mind
distinct recollection of the large square iron nails with cres-
cent-tipped ends, still used in the Orient.
Others less credulous, however, have given additional, uncom-

plimentary information:
[A] Professor Martini conducted a surveillance of Therese

Neumann and observed that blood would flow from her
wounds only on those occasions when he was persuaded to
leave the room, as if something “needed to be hidden from ob-
servation” [i.e., in manually inflicting superficial wounds on
herself]. He added: “It was for the same reason that I disliked
her frequent manipulations behind the raised [bed] cover-
ings”....
[The stigmata shifted] from round to rectangular over
time, presumably as she learned the true shape of Roman nails
(Nickell, 2001).
In another equally impressive attempt at parapsychology, Yoga-

nanda (1946) related his encounter with a “Perfume Saint” in India,
the latter being credited with the power of manifesting scents on de-
mand:
I was a few feet away from Gandha Baba; no one else was near
enough to contact my body. I extended my hand, which the
yogi did not touch.
“What perfume do you want?”
“Rose.”
“Be it so.”
To my great surprise, the charming fragrance of rose was
wafted strongly from the center of my palm.
The late magician Milbourne Christopher (1975), however, of-

fered a very simple explanation for Paramahansa’s reported “miracu-
lous” experience:
Yogananda, who did not know how the feat was accomplished,
erred in saying the yogi did not touch his hand before the rose
fragrance came from it. In this presentation the performer se-
cretly breaks the proper pellet [of the requested perfume en-
closed in wax, hidden under a fingernail] as soon as a scent is
named; the perfume wets the ball of his thumb. Instructing the
spectator to extend his hand, the performer reaches across to
grasp it with his thumb on the palm and his fingers on the
back. As he does this, the performer says, “I want you to turn
your hand palm down. I will not touch it.” The spectator re-
members the words, not the action, of the performer. The per-
former moves several feet away. While standing at a distance,
he tells the spectator to turn his hand palm upward. The scent
is not perceptible until the spectator’s hand turns and the fra-
grance rises upward to his nostrils....
With a dozen tiny pellets, an adept showman can con-
vince a skeptical investigator that “any” perfume can be mate-
rialized.
Yogananda himself, though, may not have been such an innocent

stranger to the means behind such “parlor tricks.” For, consider the
following demonstration of “yogic powers” on his part:
[Yogananda] interrupted his talk to ask if there were a doctor

in the audience. A man stood up and Swamiji asked him to
come on the stage. He requested the doctor, “Take my pulse
and tell me what you feel.” The doctor felt his wrist, looking
perplexed at first and then amazed. “There is no pulse,” he an-
swered. Swamiji then told him to take the pulse on the other
wrist. The doctor’s facial expression turned from amazement
to incredulity. He said, “Swami Yogananda, this is impossible.
Your pulse is pounding at an incredible speed.” He quickly
tried the other side again and said, “This side is normal.” He
came down from the stage into the audience shaking his head
and mumbling, “Impossible, impossible” (Charlton, 1990).
And yet, as the East Indian rationalist Basava Premanand (2005)

has noted:
[The cessation of the pulse at the wrists] is done by stopping

the flow of blood to the hands by keeping a lemon, or a small
ball or a rolled handkerchief in the armpits and pressing. Doc-
tors do not in the confusion check the heartbeat but check the
pulse and confirm that the pulse is stopped.
In the SRF Lessons (Yogananda, 1984), we are further informed

of the following metaphysical claim:
In rare instances ... a person who has lived a very animalistic

existence is drawn into the body of an animal, to learn some
lesson. This explains the “thinking dogs” and “thinking
horses” which have puzzled scientists who have tested them.
The Lessons were compiled and edited by Yogananda’s direct

disciples, under his oversight. Thus, one cannot know whether Par-
amahansa himself was solely responsible for the above insight, or
whether it should rather be credited to members of the current Board
of Directors, for example (or to Kriyananda, who also worked on that
editing). Either way, though, the “explanation” offered above to sci-
entists—whether puzzled or otherwise—is radically mistaken.
The most famous of the “thinking horses” of the twentieth cen-
tury were Lady Wonder and Clever Hans.
Learned professors were convinced that Hans could work out

his own solution to mathematical problems and had a better
knowledge of world affairs than most fourteen-year-old child-
ren (Christopher, 1970).
Lady Wonder was equally feted by the New York World in

1927, as allegedly being able to “read minds, predict the future and
converse in Chinese.” Yet, that did not stop her from being conclu-
sively debunked by Milbourne Christopher in 1956:
As a test, Christopher gave Lady’s trainer, Mrs. Claudia

Fonda, a false name, “John Banks”.... When Christopher sub-
sequently inquired of Lady, “What is my name?,” the mare
obligingly nudged the levers [of the horse’s large “typewriter”]

to spell out B-A-N-K-S....
Mrs. Fonda gave a “slight movement” of her training rod
whenever Lady’s head was at the correct letter (Nickell,
2002).
Further experimentation by Christopher disclosed that Fonda had

herself been deceptively utilizing the mentalists’ trick of “pencil read-
ing”—in visually following the movements of the free end of a pen-
cil, to discern what number had been written down by a questioner.
She was then cueing Lady Wonder with that information, thus allow-
ing the horse to fake “telepathy” well enough to fool the credulous
parapsychologist J. B. Rhine.
Earlier in the twentieth century, Clever Hans had fared no better
when tested by Oskar Pfungst:
Pfungst’s study revealed that the horse could give a correct an-
swer only if the questioner knew it. When Pfungst shielded the
eyes of the animal, the hoof remained still. It was reasonable to
suppose at this point that [Hans’ owner] was cueing Hans sub-
consciously. Further study ruled out signals by touch or sound.
Pfungst now centered his observations on the questioner. He
discovered that Hans started stamping when the questioner
leaned forward ever so slightly to see the hoof in action. Hans
stopped when the man relaxed even a fraction....
Then Pfungst played horse himself. He rapped with his
right hand as friends posed queries. Twenty-three out of
twenty-five questioners gave the starting and stopping cue
without realizing it. Pfungst’s answers were as baffling to them
as the horse’s had been (Christopher, 1970).
“Not so clever now, eh, Hans?” Nor such a Clever Paramahansa.

For, while “thinking” dogs, pigs, goats and geese have all been exhib-
ited over the course of the past few centuries, ordinary training and
conscious or subconscious cueing can account for all of their cele-
brated behaviors. Thus, independent of whether or not reincarnation
exists, there is no rational reason to believe that it has anything to do
with such “thinking.”
Note, further, how similar cues to those given unconsciously by
the questioners of Clever Hans would have to be present and relevant
in the search for tulkus. For, the latter are again children who are
asked to identify the possessions of their “previous incarnation,” from
among a set of objects ... where others in the room with the child
know what the right answer is. A suitably sensitive or crafty child,
even if only a few years old, might well be able to pick up on such
inadvertent cues, just as a relatively dumb horse can. Voilà! an “in-
carnation,” who will very quickly have additional “miraculous”
events incorporated into the myth of his “recognition.” And thereby
do utterly normal rainbows, coincidental dreams, and otherwise-
irrelevant pails full of forgotten milk become “signs.”
Of course, such searches are typically initially motivated by a
lama’s dream of a particular house, or of a family with specific char-
acteristics, living in a certain direction, etc. But even there, “seek
and—statistically—ye shall find.” That is so, even without later “revi-
sionist histories” as to the details of the original events, to emphasize
particular attributes of the dream. For, it is unavoidable that elements
of the dream which, at the time of dreaming, were no more important
than any others, will assume purported significance when a promising
family is found, which matches some of the selectively chosen “facts”
revealed in the dream, but misses completely on others—as it invaria-
bly will. With equal certainty, those “misses” will not be mentioned
in later recountings of the “recognition” myth.
Seen in that light, the reported poor behaviors, in sex and vio-
lence, of contemporary and past tulkus and Dalai Lamas become very
understandable. For, those “reincarnated sages” are, after all, very
ordinary people, who were simply placed into extraordinary circum-
stances from childhood onward. And even an otherwise-average per-
son could “play holy,” as they do publicly, if that was all he had ever
been taught how to do. (Cf. Krishnamurti. Yogananda, too, was
trained from earliest childhood to be a “spiritual engine,” destined to
bring others to God.)
***
Yogananda (in Kriyananda, 1974) offered numerous predictions for

the future, prior to his passing in the early 1950s. Included among
those were an anticipated “revolution” in America against govern-
mental interference; the end of England as a world power; and the
prophecy that China would “end up absorbing Japan.” The yogi fur-
ther foresaw a Third World War, around the 1970s, to spread com-
munism throughout “much of the free world.” Following that would
be a fourth such war, “toward the last decade” of the twentieth cen-
tury. That conflict was fated to devastate Europe, annihilate (commu-
nist) Russia, and leave America victorious, ushering in a new age of
peace for hundreds of years.
In addition:
A terrible [economic] depression is coming, far worse than the

last one!....
In the next century Boston will have a tropical climate,
and the people there will be brown skinned (in Kriyananda,
1974).
We shall have to see, of course, what becomes of the Bostonian

climate in the future, what with global warming and all.
In any case, the booklet in which all of the above wildly wrong
predictions were preserved by Yogananda’s schismatic direct disciple
Kriyananda is by now, understandably, long out of print. (The above
are not merely the most-wrong of Paramahansa’s predictions in that
book, but are rather a concise summary of his prognostications. Were
there any non-obvious and correct prophecies therein, I would happily
have included them here. There are not.)
***
Yogananda himself claimed to have lived at Stonehenge around 1500

BC in a previous incarnation, and asserted that Winston Churchill was
the reincarnation of Napoleon. (Churchill’s [1874 – 1965] life, how-
ever, overlapped with Aurobindo’s, with the latter, too, again claim-
ing to be the reincarnation of Monsieur Bonaparte.) Also according to
Yogananda, Hitler was Alexander the Great. In the same vein, Kri-
yananda (1977) relates Paramahansa’s declaration that Benito Musso-
lini was Marc Anthony; Kaiser Wilhelm was Julius Caesar; Stalin
was Genghis Khan; Charles Lindbergh was Abraham Lincoln; and
Therese Neumann was Mary Magdalene. (Neumann died in 1962;
Rajneesh’s Vivek, claiming the same reincarnation, was born before
then; etc.) Among the SRF gurus, Lahiri Mahasaya was, according to
the same source, both King Janaka and the poet Kabir. Likewise, Ba-
baji (as with Aurobindo) was believed to be the reincarnation of

Krishna—with Yogananda himself being the Bhagavad Gita’s Ar-
juna, Krishna’s most beloved disciple. As he himself explained parts
of that:
[Rajasi Janakananda—James J. Lynn, Yogananda’s most ad-

vanced male disciple—was] one of the [Bhagavad Gita’s]
twins, the positive one, Nakula. He was my favorite brother
and I loved him more than anyone else. I was also his Guru
then too. Krishna was my guru and Babaji, being Krishna, is
still my guru, Sri Yukteswarji was my guru by proxy for Ba-
baji (in Mata, 1992).
Yogananda further said that he himself would reincarnate in a

few hundred years, “just to sit in back and meditate.”
All of the gurus in the SRF lineage (i.e., Krishna, Jesus, Babaji,
Lahiri Mahasaya and Sri Yukteswar) are additionally believed to be
avatars. Yukteswar is also held to have been the reincarnation of the
stigmatist Saint Francis of Assisi.
“Sir,” I asked Master [i.e., Yogananda] one day at his desert

retreat, “are you an avatar?”
With quiet simplicity he replied, “A work of this impor-
tance would have to be started by such a one” (Kriyananda,
1979).
Indeed, Yogananda often said of SRF and kriya yoga, “This

work is a special dispensation of God” (Kriyananda, 1979). He fur-
ther prophesied that it would sweep the world “like wildfire” over the
coming millennia, to the point where “millions would come.”
As expected, there is an asserted connection with Jesus as well:
“Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya, and Sri Yukteswar,” [Yogananda]

announced, “were the three wise men who came to visit the
Christ child in the manger” (Kriyananda, 1979).
Others (e.g., Burke, 1994) have suggested that Yogananda was

also previously John the Beloved (i.e., Jesus’ apostle, John).
Yogananda himself claimed, on other occasions, to be the rein-
carnation of William the Conqueror. The latter king, being the ille-
gitimate son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and a tanner’s daughter,

was also known as William the Bastard. He was actually reputed to be
able to heal scrofula (a kind of tuberculosis) with a mere “king’s
touch.”
In later years Yogananda revealed to me why he called me his

“giant returned.” Yogananda in a past existence had been Wil-
liam the Conqueror.
I experienced in a vision the Battle of Hastings as King
William conquered England. I was beside him in this battle,
and was of such stature I could look him straight in the eyes
while standing beside him as he sat astride his horse. I carried
a gigantic battle axe which in effect allowed no harm to come
to his person (Paulsen, 1984).
However: Even a very small war horse of, say, fourteen hands at
the shoulder, with the nearly six-foot tall William ensconced in its
saddle, would dictate a standing “giant” around an unbelievable eight
and a half feet tall, for their eyes to be at the same level.
Yogananda (1986) continues:
Quite a few people have heard me mention a previous life in

which I lived for many years in England. Experiences of that
life come clearly to my mind. There were certain details about
the Tower of London [a historic fortress, originally a royal pal-
ace built by William the Conqueror after the Battle of Hast-
ings, and today displaying the Crown Jewels] that I remem-
bered very well, and when I went there in 1935 I saw that
those places were exactly as I had seen them within.
Or, as Kriyananda/Walters (2002) relates it:
Master had told Daya that she was one of his daughters when
he was William the Conqueror. One couldn’t help feeling that
there was a certain regal quality about Daya Mata, as also
about Virginia, her sister, who now bears the name Ananda
Mata, and who also was closely related to Master during that
lifetime. I came to believe, though Master had never told me
so, that I was Daya’s youngest brother, Master’s son, in that
incarnation.
Yogananda further said of one of Durga Mata’s brothers:
[H]e was with me in a previous life. If you will recall, when

William the Conqueror fell upon landing in England, one of
his men [i.e., the current brother] told William, “This fall is a
bad omen, let us turn back” (Mata, 1992).
William himself, however, seems to have exhibited somewhat

less than the “omnipresent divine love” with which Yogananda has
since been credited:
When William was in his early twenties he asked Count Bald-

win V of Flanders for his daughter Matilda’s hand in marriage.
[Matilda was a diminutive 4' 2", or half the height of Paulsen’s
alleged gigantic incarnation.] But Matilda was already in love
with an Englishman named Brihtric. She supposedly pro-
claimed that she would rather become a nun than the wife of a
bastard, which made William so angry that he attacked her in
the street as she left church one day. He slapped her, tore her
clothes, threw her to the ground, and rode off (Royalty, 2003).
William and Matilda were actually distant cousins, causing the

pope to object to their eventual marriage on grounds of incest. Indeed,
His Holiness went so far as to excommunicate the “happy couple”—
and everyone else in Normandy—for several years; relenting only at
William’s promised building of two new abbeys.
In later years, in search of greater conquests,
William gathered together a great army in Normandy, and had

many men, and sufficient transport-shipping. The day that he
rode out of the castle to his ships, and had mounted his horse,
his wife came to him, and wanted to speak with him; but when
he saw her he struck at her with his heel, and set his spurs so
deep into her breast that she fell down dead; and the earl rode
on to his ships, and went with his ships over to England
(Sturlson, 1997).
[H]e was merciless in the suppression of political opposition.

In fact, so merciless was he that he introduced the act of be-
heading to England in 1076 (Silverman, 2003).
To be fair, however, William B. was said to have been “obsessed

by guilt over his treatment of Waltheof [the first Saxon to lose his
head, while all around were keeping theirs] until his own death a dec-
ade later” (BBC, 2003). And that, from a man who had a lot to feel
guilty about:
William loved gold too much ... he had a passion for hunting
and protected his game by savage laws which made beasts
more valuable than men (Walker, 1968).
And at other times, when on the warpath:
Twenty-six unfortunate citizens [from the town of Alençon]

were lined up and their hands and feet were cut off, partly for
vengeance, partly to terrify the garrison. The savagery was
successful. William was rarely driven to that point of anger
again (Walker, 1968).
“Rarely”? How often is “rarely”?

The chronically obese bastard himself sadly met with a some-
what unsavory end. For, while on horseback fighting the French at the
Battle of Mantes, William’s intestines were ruptured in his being
thrown violently against the iron pommel of his saddle. From the in-
ternal pollution of that injury peritonitis quickly set in, resulting in his
slow death, over a five-week period, in 1087 at age sixty.
During the ensuing funeral procession, mourners were forced to
leave his coffin in the hot sun while fighting a nearby fire. From that
heat, William’s pus- and waste-filled intestinal abscess swelled. Fur-
ther, the prepared sarcophagus into which dear William was to be
placed for all eternity had, alas, been built too short to accommodate
the full height of the ex-king.
Attempting to squeeze him into that planned stone resting place,
the overly enthusiastic undertakers finally pushed on William’s
swelled abdomen to the point where the body burst. That error
drenched his burial garb with pus, filling the St. Stephen’s abbey with
that stench and sending the nauseous, overheated mourners racing for
the church doors.
He was thenceforth quickly buried, and allowed to rest in peace
... until 1522, when the body was exhumed, examined, and re-
interred. From that point, it was left alone “until 1562 when the [Cal-
vinist] Huguenots dug him up and threw his bones all over the court-
yard” (Silverman, 2003). In the process, they trashed the gold, silver
and precious-jewel monument marking the tomb.
Only a single thigh bone survived, which was preserved and

reburied under a new monument in 1642. But even this was
destroyed during the French Revolution (Grout, 2003).
Perhaps not fully aware of the relevant karmic history, SRF in

the late 1990s set plans in motion to have Yogananda’s body moved.
That is, they intended to relocate it from the Forest Lawn (Glendale,
California) cemeteries wherein it had rested since his passing—down
the hall from the tomb of Hopalong Cassidy—to a planned shrine
atop Mount Washington in Los Angeles (Russell, 1999).
Arguably best for everyone concerned, the plan was later
dropped in the face of intense public opposition.
In addition to his life as William the Conqueror, Yogananda also
claimed to be the reincarnation of William Shakespeare. There is, in-
deed, a vague facial resemblance between the two of them, as be-
tween Paramahansa and professed likenesses of William the Con-
queror. And Yogananda’s Autobiography of a Yogi is inarguably the
work of a masterful author—whether one regards its stories as factual
or fictional. Further, Yogananda (1982) explicitly encouraged his fol-
lowers to study the Bard in particular:
Read Shakespeare and other classics, and suitable portions

from practical books on such subjects as chemistry, physics,
physiology, history of Oriental and Western philosophy, com-
parative religion, ethics and psychology.
Of course, having thus himself allegedly written all of William

Shakespeare’s plays in that previous life, none of the following, well-
known bawdy aspects embedded in those same works of art could
have surprised Yogananda:
• In Othello, Cassio’s love-interest (aside from the wife of

Othello himself, Desdemona) is the prostitute Bianca
• Significant parts of Pericles take place in and around a

brothel
• The Taming of the Shrew has Gremio referring to Kate as a
prostitute by offering to “cart” her through the streets—a
punishment for whores—instead of to court her. In the open-
ing “wooing scene” of Act II of the same play, Petruchio
speaks of having his tongue in Kate’s “tail.”
Tail, in Shakespearean slang, denotes the female sex-

ual organ just about as often as the male, so there
need be no doubt that Petruchio, in his crudely flirta-
tious way, is trying to interest Katherina in the propo-
sition of cunnilingus (Colman, 1974)
• The “playhouse poultry” in Bartholomew Fair are prostitutes

• In Mercutio’s “Queen Mab” speech from Romeo and Juliet,
the name “Mab” itself was an insult, being synonymous with
“prostitute” in Shakespeare’s time
• Measure for Measure has a brothel run by a “Mistress Over-
done,” along with whores lazily whipping transvestite men.
Also, the pimp Pompey plays comically sadistic games with
his fellow prisoners. The lascivious Lucio in the same script
is finally punished by the restored Duke Vincentio by being
forced to marry a prostitute
• In Love’s Labour’s Lost, “Boyet’s line ‘An if my hand be
out, then belike your hand is in’ is accusing Maria of mas-
turbation” (Colman, 1974)
• In Henry IV, if “as seems probable, Falstaff’s ‘neither fish
nor flesh’ implies ‘neither male nor female,’ then the corol-
lary ‘a man knows not where to have her’ becomes one of
Shakespeare’s very few references to anal intercourse” (Col-
man, 1974)
• When Juliet’s Nurse demands of Romeo, “Why should you
fall into so deep an O?” the letter O [cf. nothing/nought/
naught/naughty] probably “carries the bawdy implication of
vulva” (Colman, 1974)
• Likewise with Hamlet:
HAMLET: Do you think I meant country matters?

OPHELIA: I think nothing, my lord.
HAMLET: That’s a fair thought to lie between
maids’ legs.
OPHELIA: What is, my lord?
HAMLET: Nothing.
After the pun in country [i.e., “cunt’ry”], we need not

doubt that Hamlet is making a further bawdy joke
with “Nothing” (Colman, 1974)
• Finally, in Twelfth Night, Malvolio accepts Maria’s forged

letter as follows: “By my life, this is my lady’s hand. These
be her very C’s, her U’s and her T’s; and thus makes she her
great P’s.”
Helge Kökeritz ... explained this C-U-T not as a jin-

gle on cunt but as cut itself, a word which, I am told,
still occurs in English as a slang term for vulva.
Kökeritz also proposed that, following this, Mal-
volio’s phrase “her great P’s” implies urination (Col-
man, 1974)
We find additional puns on four-letter “focative” and “genitive”

cases; carets/carrots as “good roots”/penises; and “two stones” as
probable testicles. Also, numerous references, both humorous and
serious, to syphilis, the “malady of France” ... which, ironically,
brings us full circle to the Norman Conquest under King William, the
bastard.
All of that would, of course, make Yogananda’s strong empha-
sis, a few hundred years later, on celibacy and purity of thought for
his own followers, a tad incongruous. (“But Sir, we were just discuss-
ing your writings!”)
Shakespeare himself passed away on his 52nd birthday in 1616,
and remains buried in the Church of the Holy Trinity in Stratford-on-
Avon. Having perhaps learned a lesson from previously disruptive
post-mortem experiences, the (modernized) inscription on a sculpture
of him there reads:
Good friend, for Jesus’ sake forbear

To dig the dust enclosed here
Blest be the man that spares these stones
And curst be he that moves my bones
***
Yogananda “shuffled off the mortal coil” for the final time—i.e., en-
tered mahasamadhi—in 1952. Immediately thereafter, SRF has since
widely claimed, his untenanted body began manifesting a “divine in-
corruptibility.”
A notarized statement signed by the director of Forest Lawn

Memorial-Park testified: “No physical disintegration was visi-
ble in his body even twenty days after death.... This state of
perfect preservation of a body is, so far as we know from mor-
tuary annals, an unparalleled one.... Yogananda’s body was
apparently in a phenomenal state of immutability” (in Yoga-
nanda, 1998).
The editors at Self-Realization Fellowship (in SRF, 1976) then

waxed eloquent:
This is as it should be. Paramahansa, flawlessly perfect soul

that he was, could not possibly have chosen for tenement a
body that was not in pre-established harmony with the purest
conceivable soul.
And yet, as Robert Carroll (2004b) has noted:
The statement [quoted by SRF] of the director of Forest Lawn,

Harry T. Rowe, is accurate, but incomplete. Mr. Rowe also
mentioned that he observed a brown spot on Yogananda’s nose
after twenty days, a sign that the body was not “perfectly” pre-
served. In any case, the SRF’s claim that lack of physical dis-
integration is “an extraordinary phenomenon” is misleading....
The state of the yogi’s body is not unparalleled, but common.
A typical embalmed body will show no notable desiccation for
one to five months after burial without the use of refrigeration
or creams to mask odors.... Some bodies are well-preserved for

years after burial.
And indeed, with regard to embalming, in the full text of Mr.

Rowe’s letter, reprinted in the SRF-published (1976) Paramahansa
Yogananda, In Memoriam, we find:
Paramahansa Yogananda’s body was embalmed on the night

of March 8th, with that quantity of fluid which is customarily
used in any body of similar size.
And the “miracle” then was ... what, exactly? Apparently, only
that the body was relatively well preserved even with the funeral
home having used no creams to prevent mold, in addition to the em-
balming. Yet even there, Harry Edwards’ (1995) research in soliciting
the opinions of a pair of independent, licensed embalmers, disclosed
the following experience on their parts:
“I’m sure we’ve had bodies for two or three months with good
preservation. This is not unusual. Creams are not necessary” ...
“preservation for twenty days through embalming is not un-
usual. We can keep a body a month or two without interral ...
an embalming fluid with a lanolin base will have humecant
which prevents dehydration, which is the major concern.”
As Edwards’ embalmers further noted, the circulation of air

around Yogananda’s body would have been largely prevented by the
casket’s heavy glass lid, with that too impeding the desiccation of the
body.
So the “miracle” then was ... what, exactly? Perhaps only that
SRF has gotten away, for over fifty years, with presenting a phe-
nomenon which is perfectly ordinary, as if it was some kind of “sign”
to prove the divinity of their eminently human founder.
***
Master had told some of us: “You need never concern your-
selves about the leadership of our Society. Babaji has already
selected those who are destined to lead this work” (Mata,
1971).
Following Yogananda’s passing, the presidency of SRF was assumed

by his foremost disciple, James J. Lynn (Rajarsi/Rajasi Janakananda),
a wealthy Kansas City businessman. At Yogananda’s prompting,
Lynn had reportedly endowed SRF with up to six million dollars
worth of cash, land and bonds.
Mr. Lynn himself was possessed of the following interesting
characteristics:
Little Jimmy wore dresses and long hair up to the age of six....
Rajasi did not like ugliness in any form. For instance, if
he dropped something on the floor and spilled its contents, he
disgustingly [sic] walked out of the room as fast as he could so
he would not have to see it (Mata, 1992).
Since Lynn’s passing in 1955, Self-Realization Fellowship has

carried on with Daya Mata at the helm, after Durga Mata had declined
the leadership offer owing to her own poor health and age (Mata,
1992).
A long-time friend of Durga’s later offered her opinion of
Daya’s character, in Russell (1999), as being “weak and idealistic” in
her younger days, but then getting “a taste of power” in India.
One interesting change made by SRF, soon after Rajasi’s passing
and Daya Mata’s corresponding ascension into power, was in the very
spelling of their founder’s name.
Yogananda wrote his title, Paramhansa, without the additional

a in the middle. This is, in fact, how the word is commonly
pronounced in India. The addition of that letter was made years
later, on the advice of scholars in India, according to whom
Paramahansa without the a, though phonetically true, was
grammatically incorrect (Kriyananda, 1979).
That change was apparently made in 1958, coinciding with the

SRF-sponsored visit of His Holiness Jagadguru (“World Teacher”)
Sri Shankaracharya Bharati Krishna Tirtha to America. Tirtha himself
was the “ecclesiastical head of most of Hindu India and the apostolic
successor of the first Shankaracharya.”
Personally, I would never have followed Yogananda in the first
place if I thought that he didn’t know how to spell his own name.
(Similar issues to the above surround the past “Rajasi” versus current
“Rajarsi” spellings of Lynn’s monastic name [Dakota, 1998].)
In any case, under Daya Mata’s governance SRF has weathered
several recent scandals, including one involving the alleged sexual
activities of a highly placed male monastic minister who was report-
edly ultimately forced to leave the order. The handling of that diffi-
culty allegedly included nearly one-third of a million dollars in com-
pensation paid to the unfortunate woman involved. In that same con-
text, however:
[Persons familiar with the details] contend that several top SRF
leaders—including Daya Mata—not only turned a deaf ear to
[the woman in question] after she sought help while still in-
volved with the monk, but that those leaders attempted to ruin
her reputation within the church even as they sought to pre-
serve [the monk’s] monastic career.... “They [the church lead-
ership] pretty much destroyed [the involved woman’s] faith
and ruined her life” [a friend said] (Russell, 1999).
That is all the more disappointing, given the alleged “perfected

being” nature of SRF’s leadership and its Board of Directors:
The people running [SRF] are supposedly enlightened siddhas,

which makes it even more confusing, because how dare lay
devotees question, or worse, challenge, what they have done?
But then how can we swallow what’s being done (radical edit-
ing, photo alteration, and the rest of it [see Dakota, 1998])?
(Kriya Yoga Discussion Board, 2001).
In a letter to me, SRF defined a siddha as one who is “uncon-

ditionally one with God, partaking of all God’s attributes, in-
cluding those of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence”
(Rawlinson, 1997).
Such beings would ostensibly never make mistakes. Yogananda

himself essentially confirmed as much:
The actions of true masters, though not easily understood by

worldly people, are always wisdom-guided, never whimsical
(in Kriyananda, 1979).
A master’s word cannot be falsified; it is not lightly given

(Yogananda, 1946).
Regarding “mistakes” and the like in Yogananda’s own life,

however: It has been asserted that, in the February 1934 issue of the
SRF-published East-West magazine, he had praised the Italian fascist
leader Mussolini as being a “master brain,” who had been sent to
Earth by God to serve as a role model for humanity. (I have not been
able to obtain a copy of that issue myself, and so cannot corroborate
that claim. Significantly, though, an earlier issue of East-West had
approvingly included a short piece by Mussolini [1927] himself, on
“Science and Religion.”) A mere year later, however, the same dicta-
tor invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia), in what has been viewed as the
opening round of WWII.
Of course, that a guru would sympathize with a totalitarian dicta-
tor should really not be so surprising: There is, after all, very little
actual difference between the two positions. (Interestingly, Pope Pius
XI, too, “spoke of Mussolini as ‘a man sent by Providence’” [Corn-
well, 1999].) That is so, even down to both sets of societies begin-
ning, in the most generous reading, with the best of intentions for all,
prior to their leaders becoming utterly corrupted in their exercise of
power.
Nor, given the history of violence and suppression in our world’s
secular totalitarian states, should we be surprised to find exactly the
same intolerance for discontent being reportedly exhibited regularly
on behalf of our gurus and other “infallible” beings. Excommunica-
tions and threats of eternal damnation for disloyalty, after all, serve to
quell dissenting or independent viewpoints, and preserve the welfare
of those in absolute power, just as well as politically motivated mur-
ders and bloody purges do.
***
A number of other kriya yogis have contributed colorful storylines to

the history of yoga and Yogananda, while working both inside and
outside of SRF itself.
One of those, Swami Kriyananda (J. Donald Walters), was
unanimously elected by the SRF Board of Directors as vice president
of Self-Realization Fellowship in 1960. (That board is of course the
same “omniscient” group that had earlier elected Daya Mata as presi-
dent.) Prior to that, he had worked, organized and lectured within
SRF since 1948, upon entering the SRF monasteries at age twenty-
two. On returning from India on SRF business in 1962, however, he
was forced to leave the organization, despite his own entreaties to be
allowed to stay and do anything except wash dishes there.
In relating his own side of that story, Walters (2002) regards the
reasons for that that split as being “essentially political” in their na-
ture.
That position, however, differs somewhat from what the Ananda
Awareness Network website (www.anandainfo.com) has to say. For
there, a number of “sexual indiscretion” reasons are alleged for that
forced departure.
Whatever the specific grounds may have been for his expulsion,
Walters had recovered enough by 1967 to purchase the first of the
lands for his own “world brotherhood colony” or spiritual commu-
nity, the Ananda Cooperative Village, near Nevada City in northern
California. That 900-acre village currently hosts a population of
around three hundred disciples of Yogananda, their devotion being
filtered through Walters’ specific emphasis on “service,” in his cast-
ing of himself as a “channel” for Yogananda’s blessings. Worldwide,
the Ananda group numbers around 2500 members; I myself was once
officially among them. Sigh.
The original land—now utilized only as a remote retreat—for
that colony was acquired in a six-investor deal involving Alan Gins-
berg and Gary Snyder. Also participating in that land deal was Rich-
ard Baker of the San Francisco Zen Center, a friend of Walters since
1967.
Walters’ motivations for founding the Ananda colony, and vari-
ous subsequent satellites to it, included Yogananda’s (1946) explicit
mission statement in the “Aims and Ideals of Self-Realization Fellow-
ship”:
To spread a spirit of brotherhood among all peoples; and to aid

in establishing, in many countries, self-sustaining world-
brotherhood colonies for plain living and high thinking.
That goal has since been removed from the “Aims and Ideals”
printed at the back of every copy of the Autobiography of a Yogi. The
reader can easily confirm, however, via any reasonably comprehen-

sive public library, that it was present in earlier editions. (Any version
with a copyright in the 1940s or early ’50s should have it.) Yoganan-
da voiced the wish for the establishing of those colonies in public lec-
tures as well, encouraging
thousands of youths ... to cover the Earth with little colonies,

demonstrating that simplicity of living plus high thinking lead
to the greatest happiness (Kriyananda, 1979).
Or, as one of Yogananda’s other direct disciples, Kamala (1964),

put it:
Master spoke to me about the value of SRF Colonies. He re-

ferred to the forming of groups within a city or a rural area in
the manner of hermitage life, among members who do not de-
sire to become renunciates, or cannot do so because of certain
obligations. Such a life would enable each one to be in daily
association with those who share the same spiritual goal. He
described such Colonies as made up of married couples and
their families, as well as single people, who have the will to
serve, and to live in harmony with one another. Master envi-
sioned the idea as one in which all may work together in a self-
supporting group wherein each one is dedicated to God.
With his colony in place and growing, thence followed several

marriages of Kriyananda in the 1980s to female devotees at Ananda.
(Walters apparently still goes by the monastic “Swami Kriyananda”
title when interacting with his students, for example.) More recently,
allegations of sexual improprieties with other female followers have
surfaced. Indeed, expert witness Pamela Cooper White reportedly told
a California court in 1998 that, in her opinion,
Walters clearly fell within the profile of a clergy sex offender.

She added that he was on the “most destructive, predatory end
of that spectrum, that of the multiple repeat offender who de-
liberately seeks vulnerable women to exploit for his own sex-
ual gratification” (Sullivan, 2003).
The same article lists no less than eight women accusing Walters
of sex-related infractions, ranging from indecent exposure to sexual
slavery.
Walters himself, however, has a different perspective on those
alleged sexual encounters. Thus, in a court deposition (Walters, 1995;
italics added), in response to the accusations of one of the women
whom he reportedly admitted had massaged and masturbated him on
eight separate occasions in early 1982, he apparently stated:
Let me repeat that it was not a romantic or passionate feeling,

but it was a friendly feeling. I was not using [woman #2]. I did
not feel that I was using her.
Her statements many years after the fact are not corrobo-
rated by my memory of her action then, which was in fact to
thrust herself upon me, against my pleas to the contrary....
I was trying to be in seclusion. She and (woman #1) came
down repeatedly to my house. And I said, please, leave me be.
I want to be quiet, and I want to meditate and understand this
confusion that I’m going through with (woman #7)’s depar-
ture. I was in a state of emotional shock, confusion and trauma,
but I did not in any way notice at the time that she was being
upset, hostile, resistant. Rather, quite the contrary, she was
thrusting herself on me.
The woman (#2) in question was a twenty-something ex-student,

just out of university, at the time; Walters was in his late fifties, bald-
ing and overweight.
In any case, judging from Walters’ other (e.g., 2002) writings,
unwanted attempts at seduction seem to be a recurring problem:
Many women, not unnaturally, saw in me their natural “prey”

.... I remember one attractive lady emerging into the living
room of her home from its inner apartment during my visit
there. Completely naked, she chased me about the room until I
finally managed to make good my escape!
Whew! that was a close one!

The hunter and the hunted—“the hungry, attractive lioness stalks
her unsuspecting, innocent prey,” etc.
“There but for the grace of God....”
Some monks have all the luck. But then, some monks apparently
have all the “realization,” too:
At one point, Swami [Kriyananda] told me that he was greater

than Gandhi and Sai Baba, that no one had the spiritual power
he had (Woman #2, 1995).
The choice of Sai Baba for comparison was, of course, a singu-

larly unfortunate one: the average housecat has more spiritual power
than Sai Baba.
***
Norman Paulsen, founder of Santa Barbara’s Brotherhood of the Sun

community, is another direct disciple of Yogananda. He resided in the
SRF ashrams for four and a half years, from May of 1947 to Novem-
ber, 1951.
Norman had a heart almost as big as his body.... Not at all in-
terested in the theoretical aspects of the path, he understood
everything in terms of devotion....
“I don’t know any of those things!” he would exclaim
with a gentle smile whenever I raised some philosophical co-
nundrum. “I just know that I love God.” How I envied him his
child-like devotion! (Kriyananda, 1979).
Obvious problems, however, can easily arise from such a simple

perspective. Thus, in a plot worthy of George Lucas or Steven Spiel-
berg, Paulsen regards human beings as having been created in the
“lost lands of Mu” by “The Builders.” That is, created by peace-
loving space refugees “from other worlds that had been destroyed by
[their] evil conquerors [or ‘Fallen Angels’]” in a distant part of the
galaxy. Such Builders were believed to have outrun their pursuers,
half a million years ago, at speeds exceeding that of light. In that
view, human beings are a genetic cross between The Builders’ own
species and homo erectus.
The aforementioned “lost lands” were now-sunken island conti-
nents near to (and including) Australia, allegedly destroyed twelve
thousand years ago by huge meteorites sent by the Fallen Angels, thus
being “literally blasted out of the Earth’s crust” by those collisions.
Fiji and many of the other islands between Australia and Hawaii,
Paulsen claims, are simply the peaks of mountains from those sub-
merged continents.
The “prequel” as to how those Fallen Angels came into being
boils down to a group of unduly intrepid early Builders venturing into
a forbidden area of the galaxy. There, they became trapped within a
violent magnetic storm, and were predictably adversely affected by
the negative energies of that region. Marooned on a (logically) “For-
bidden Planet” in the same zone, “dark and sinister” forces so moved
the physical bodies and minds of these unfortunate souls that
[s]uddenly the fallen Builders felt the urge emanating from

within them to conquer and enslave the entire galaxy (Paulsen,
1984).
Their—and our—story continues following the refugee Builders’

creation of the human species, with their (Builders) having been dis-
covered here 350,000 years ago by their pursuers.
The Builders finally lost the war to defend the Earth against
their fallen brethren, the Dark Angels, twelve thousand years
ago. However, after their defeat, they vowed to return and take
the Earth from the evil darkness of the Fallen Angels who now
possess it. That vow is beginning to manifest itself today [via
UFO encounters] (Paulsen, 1984).
Those insights are based on Paulsen’s own numerous meditative

experiences/revelations. Indeed, in his view Jesus was “a Builder re-
turned” to Earth. So too was the late shabd yogi Kirpal Singh. Fur-
ther, the man himself claims to have been abducted by a UFO piloted
by Builders from Jupiter. (Another “believer” with him, however,
could not see that craft, when it later reappeared to Paulsen’s vision.)
Also, to have constructed a “free energy” (i.e., perpetual motion) ma-
chine based on one-half of that abducting ship’s drive systems. And
to have destroyed Lucifer himself in an astral battle.
Ah well, even the wise Yoda was never more than one letter re-
moved from “yoga” anyway; just as the “Force,” or subtle means by
which Aurobindo allegedly influenced world events, appears equally
well in George Lucas’ world. (Lama Serkong Rinpoche’s “furrowed
face and large, pointy ears had supposedly been the model for Yoda
in the film Star Wars” [Mackenzie, 1995].)
Of course, one would not attempt to hold Yogananda or SRF re-
sponsible for every idea purveyed by disciples who have since left the
organization. Nevertheless, when it comes to UFOs one cannot help
but draw a connecting link. For, according to one of the respected and
loyal direct disciples of Yogananda whom the present author person-
ally met at the SRF Hidden Valley ashram, Paramahansa himself pre-
dicted that “if America were ever at war and losing, space aliens from
UFOs would intervene.”
Well, let us pray it never comes to that.
***
On top of all that, we further have Roy Eugene Davis (2000; italics
added), another direct disciple of Yogananda, who rushes in where
the mere “channel,” Kriyananda, fears to tread:
[A]lmost all of Paramahansaji’s disciples have passed from

this world. Of the few who remain, I am his only guru-
successor. A few of his disciples teach the philosophical prin-
ciples and practices of kriya yoga; I speak for, serve, and rep-
resent the tradition. It is my mission, which my guru con-
firmed.
One might be more inclined to take that seriously, had Yoganan-

da not explicitly stated elsewhere that he was to be the last in the SRF
line of gurus. Even Rajasi, like Daya Mata, was only the administra-
tive president of SRF, not Yogananda’s “spiritual successor.” Were
that not the case, one can hardly imagine other direct disciples pre-
senting themselves as mere “channels” of Yogananda, as opposed to
claiming explicit guru status for themselves. Even as it stands, that
boundary is regularly pushed as far as it can go:
“It is generally understood, now, that the wisdom in Master’s

teachings resides primarily in those who have been disciples
for many years,” [J. Donald Walters] wrote in a recent open
letter to the Ananda community. “It is also vitally important at
Ananda that other energies not be allowed to intrude them-
selves, as if to bypass Kriyananda and go straight to our gurus

for guidance and inspiration” (Goa, 1999).
Or, as the self-published Ananda Cooperative Village Member-

ship Guidelines of 1976 (in Nordquist, 1978) put it:
Each prospective member should understand that joining An-

anda ... means, too, following the leadership and personal
guidance of Ananda’s founder, Swami Kriyananda, as the in-
strument for Yoganandaji’s direction.
***
In early versions of his Autobiography (1946), Yogananda had given

the following information regarding one of his disciples:
The Washington leader is Swami Premananda, educated at the

Ranchi school and Calcutta University. I had summoned him
in 1928 to assume leadership of the Washington Self-Realiza-
tion Fellowship center.
“Premananda,” I told him during a visit to his new tem-
ple, “this Eastern headquarters is a memorial in stone to your
tireless devotion. Here in the nation’s capital you have held
aloft the light of Lahiri Mahasaya’s ideals.”
The same Premananda soon became Paul Twitchell’s first spiri-

tual teacher—initiating him into kriya yoga—around 1950, before the
latter’s leaving to follow Kirpal Singh. Twitchell went on to found the
Eckankar movement, with “tens of thousands of followers through the
Western world” (Rawlinson, 1997). His authorized biography was
later penned by the prolific New Age author Brad Steiger.
For the startling, near word-for-word similarities between nu-
merous paragraphs in Twitchell’s writings and earlier-published texts,
see David Lane’s www.neuralsurfer.com website, and his (1983) The
Making of a Spiritual Movement. The inconsistencies between the
various biographies of Twitchell are laid bare in the same latter book.
Twitchell passed away of a heart attack in 1971, “only months
after predicting that he would live at least another five years.”
Premananda’s name and image have since been excised from

SRF materials, including the Autobiography, apparently at Yoganan-
da’s behest, following disloyal actions on the part of the former.
***
Of course, not every aspect of Babaji’s kriya yoga mission is exe-

cuted through SRF. There are, indeed, numerous independent groups
tracing their lineage to the same great guru.
A highly placed member of one of those ancillary parties has de-
scribed his own ashram life, under a guru (Yogi Ramaiah, a.k.a.
Yogiyar) who was himself a disciple of the immortal Babaji:
In late January 1971, Yogiyar met with both Cher [no, not that
Cher—different one; although the real Cher’s son is a non-
celibate Hare Krishna] and the author together and informed
them that despite all of the efforts they as a couple had made,
the relationship should end, because the genuine love which
the author had for Cher was no longer reciprocated by her. If
the relationship were to continue, Cher would soon feel forced
not only to leave the author, but kriya yoga as well. It was
painful for the author because of the expectations he had for a
long-term relationship with Cher. But he wanted Cher to be
happy. Yogiyar also held out another route for her as an “ash-
ramite,” wherein she would live in close proximity to him, and
receive a higher level of training (Govindan, 1997).
Such “high-level, close-proximity training” of the woman ap-

pears to have worked wonders for her spiritual development:
Cher dedicated herself to kriya yoga and soon conceived a son,

“Annamalai,” with Yogiyar (Govindan, 1997).
“I got you, babe.”
***
If one cares to step just a little further off this already infirm ledge
into the truly wild unknown, one can easily find additional tales in-
volving the Himalayan Babaji. Stories such as the following:
Babaji has had many bodies throughout human history. He can

appear to you in any of them, or all of them at the same time. I
have friends to whom Babaji appeared in many bodies as a pa-
rade. This appearance enlightened them. Since meeting Babaji
in Herakhan in 1977, Babaji has appeared to me in many forms
—as a woman on a bicycle in Poland, as a bum in Washington
DC, as a bird, as a snake....
Babaji is the Father of Jesus Christ (Leonard Orr, in
[Churchill, 1996]; italics added).
Orr was a pioneer in the development of Rebirthing therapy—a

deep-breathing means of releasing psychological blockages and os-
tensible past-life traumas (Garden, 1988).
Louise Valpied (in Churchill, 1996) likewise relates:
One experience was when my dog friend, Rafike, was seri-

ously ill after being poisoned by a paralysis tick. I left the vet
surgery not knowing whether I’d see her alive again. As I
walked out the door, there was a little bird of a type I’ve never
seen before, dancing from foot to foot. Without thinking, I
knew it was Babaji saying, “Don’t worry, I am here, she’s
fine.”
This is one of the times recently Babaji has communi-
cated with me through a bird. This is happening more fre-
quently.
***
Not to be outdone, Yogananda’s younger brother Bishnu claims a

disciple, Bikram Choudhury. The latter has (literally) trademarked
many aspects and asanas of his own “heat yoga,” so popular in Hol-
lywood these halcyon days. Of that disciple-turned-teacher—who had
George Harrison as a student back in ’69—it is said:
Bikram brags about his mansion with servants in Beverly Hills

and his thirty classic cars, from Rolls-Royces to Bentleys. He
also claims to have cured every disease known to humankind
and compares himself to Jesus Christ and Buddha. Requiring
neither food nor sleep, he says, “I’m beyond Superman”
(Keegan, 2002).
The Über-“Man of Steel” himself then apparently asserts

that he has been the subject of blackmail threats on the part of
his female students:
“What happens when they say they will commit suicide unless
you sleep with them?” he asks. “What am I supposed to do?
Sometimes having an affair is the only way to save someone’s
life” (Carlson, 2002a).
Again, “there but for the grace of God....”
***
My own wholly non-humorous experiences with Self-Realization Fel-

lowship included nine months spent as a resident volunteer at the
men-only Hidden Valley ashram/hermitage outside Escondido, Cali-
fornia. That occurred from October of 1998 to July of 1999, after I
had been a loyal member of SRF for over a decade. While the empha-
sis there was never on “crazy wisdom”—indeed, the environment was
fairly bereft of any kind of wisdom—that still left plenty to be con-
cerned about.
• Before being officially accepted to live at Hidden Valley

(HV) as a resident volunteer, the applicant is required to sign
a pledge affirming that he will regard his supervisors at the
ashram as vehicles of God and Guru, and obey their instruc-
tions accordingly. That boils down to being an interesting
way for the monks in supervisory positions there to allow
themselves to feel that their actions are divinely inspired.
Further, anyone who disputes their instructions is being a
“bad disciple,” whose insubordination they will undoubtedly
publicly quietly tolerate, but privately discuss and disdain.
One is also required to disclose his sexual orientation,
and whether or not he has ever had any homosexual experi-
ences.
For the record, I myself am “straight as an arrow,”
nearly to the point of being a hetero sapien, and conse-
quently have not had any such experiences. The point here is
not that I was uncomfortable answering that question—I was
not. Rather, it is simply a sad day when our world’s “don’t

ask, don’t tell” militaries are more progressive in their think-
ing than are the same world’s “God-centered” ashrams
• The late Tara Mata (i.e., Ms. Laurie Pratt, editor of Yo-
gananda’s Autobiography, and former senior vice president
of SRF) is claimed to have been the reincarnation of Leo-
nardo da Vinci. Her own published writings, however, show
none of da Vinci’s fertile genius. (Those articles are printed
in old SRF magazines, and sometimes available in photo-
copy to lucky devotees behind the scenes.) Instead, those
writings bristle with biting and petty condemnations of any-
one who failed to agree with her yogic point of view. In par-
ticular, she expended ridiculous amounts of energy trashing
H. G. Wells and others who endorsed the standard view of
evolution and human cultural development.
The “logical force” of Tara’s arguments, however,
comes down to nothing more than a repetitive mongering of
the fact that such a view is opposed to the Hindu idea of cy-
clic spiritual development on the planet, and is therefore
“wrong.” In particular, she predictably trumpeted Yoganan-
da’s (1946) reading of those cycles as occurring within a
24,000-year period, which he associated with the “precession
of the equinoxes”—a circular motion of the Earth’s rota-
tional axis with respect to the “fixed” stars. He (via Yuktes-
war’s [1977] The Holy Science) further regarded that preces-
sion as arising from our sun being part of a binary star sys-
tem—that supposedly accounting for the movement of the
stars in the heavens through that cycle. In connection with
that presumed rhythm, other SRF monks have suggested that
“in the Kali Yuga [i.e., the ‘Iron Age’], the average height of
humans is four feet; in Dwapara [‘Bronze’], six; in Treta
[‘Silver’], eight; and in Satya [‘Gold’], ten.”
As ridiculous as that idea may be, it has a storied his-
tory, being endorsed also by Sri Aurobindo’s path:
The Puranas state that the duration of each yuga is in

direct proportion to the diminishing Truth. As a re-
sult, man’s life-span diminishes also. In addition,
they say that with the declining Truth man’s stature
too declines. Man’s height, which is fourteen cubits

in Treta, is reduced to seven cubits in Dwapara, and
goes down to four and a half cubits in Kali (Nahar,
1989).
Notwithstanding all that, the real explanation for the

(25,800-year) equinoctial precession is a problem in sopho-
more classical mechanics. It is, indeed, based upon the same
principles as those which cause the axis of rotation of a gy-
roscope or spinning top to precess or wobble. (Our sun may
yet have a binary companion, though, if the research done at
the Binary Research Institute is valid.)
Those errors are thus particularly odd, since Tara Mata,
like Yogananda, was reputed to have been able to remember
her own prior incarnations in those very same previous
“world cycles,” aeons ago. She should therefore have been in
a unique position to bolster her arguments via that supposed
directly remembered experience.
It has further been convincingly claimed that the as-
trologist Tara relied on Edgar Cayce for predictive readings,
being Cayce’s subject #778. (In Edgar’s view, Tara was one
of his Egyptian followers, when he himself was an ancient
priest there.) Cayce’s own work, however, has been thor-
oughly debunked in Randi’s (1982) Flim-Flam! and Gard-
ner’s (1957) Fads and Fallacies. For a comparable deflation
of astrology, see Susan Blackmore’s (1986) The Adventures
of a Parapsychologist.
Of course, we have already seen that Aurobindo (1872
– 1950) made the same (da Vinci) reincarnational claim as
did Tara Mata (overlapping, at 1900 – 1971). Da Vinci him-
self, interestingly, was actually homosexual (Wilber, 1998).
As to whether he would then have been allowed into the ash-
rams....
In any case, in a third-person pamphlet narrative, Tara
Mata actually styled herself as being an evolved “Forerunner
of the New Race,” on the basis of her own kundalini awak-
ening. Abbot George Burke (1994), however, related a con-
trasting perspective on Tara:
Since she claimed that even before meeting the Mas-

ter she had fully attained cosmic consciousness, she
doubtless believed herself qualified to censor his
words.
So great was Laurie Pratt’s confidence in her
perfected consciousness that she purchased some
books on Hindi, read through them, and proceeded to
“translate” the entire Autobiography of a Yogi into
that language—or rather into several hundred pages
of gibberish that her illumined intelligence told her
was Hindi. When the vice president of SRF, Swami
Kriyananda (who could speak and write Hindi), noti-
fied the officials of SRF that her manuscript which
had been sent to India for printing was utter gobble-
dygook, he was verbally rapped on the knuckles and
told to go ahead and get it printed. Only when he
took Daya Mata and other board members to the pub-
lishers (at the publisher’s insistence), who proved to
them that the manuscript (which had been set up at
the board’s insistence at great expense) was nothing
but a string of nonsense syllables, was it finally
agreed to not have it printed!
Tara herself was the granddaughter of the Mormon ra-

tionalist Orson Pratt. The latter’s responsibilities included at-
tempting to explain the curious similarities between founder
Joseph Smith’s claimed channelings of their scriptures and
some lesser-known parts of the Bible
• The late Dr. M. W. Lewis—Yogananda’s first American dis-
ciple—is likewise believed to have been the reincarnation of
Sir Francis Bacon, a primary compiler of the King James
version of the Bible. (These questions regarding previous in-
carnations are not openly touted by Self-Realization Fellow-
ship, but they are well-known behind the scenes, and never
directly denied by SRF ministers.)
However:
[King] James I himself was said to be homosexually

inclined, as also was his eventual Lord Chancellor,
Francis Bacon (Colman, 1974).
King James was also known to his friends as “Queen

James.” Seriously.
Of course, Oscar Wilde—who spent time around the
Theosophical Society—himself believed Shakespeare, too,
to have been gay (Partridge, 1947). He had, however, little
evidence for that belief other than wishful thinking. (“Either
those curtains go into samadhi, or I do”)
• In one satsanga, the administrator at Hidden Valley “guaran-
teed” that an unspecified number of the members of SRF’s
Board of Directors will have been rulers/pharaohs in ancient
Egypt
• In a Voluntary League (financial) Appeal newsletter sent to
their members in the spring of 1989, SRF disclosed that the
city of Los Angeles had been considering a public transit
plan which would have disrupted their Hollywood Temple.
City council, however, had thankfully been persuaded not to
proceed with that in part because of SRF’s protests that the
site was considered a holy place of pilgrimage by their devo-
tees around the world. (“Shrine” was the actual word they
used in the VL Appeal letter.) Amazingly, however, in 1966
SRF had reportedly filed a plan with the city calling for tear-
ing down their Mount Washington Hotel headquarters
(Dakota, 1998). That building is considered by devotees to
be much more holy than the Hollywood Temple, as Yo-
gananda lived for an extended time in the former historic
building. Evidently, then, the holiness of a place depends
upon who exactly is planning on tearing it down. (“There’s
still no room at the inn, Sir, but if we razed it and put up a
high-rise instead”...)
• Already back in 1999, according to the HV ashram adminis-
trator in a satsanga, SRF had hired an image consultant. The
relayed recommendation of that expert was that SRF should
work toward becoming known as “the spiritual organization
which lives up to its ideals more than any other.” In light of
SRF’s reported poor behavior (CANDER, 2001) in their at-
tempted Mount Washington expansion, however, the irony
there cannot be missed.
Indeed, the unhappiness generated in the surrounding

community through that undertaking included allegations of
stacked neighborhood meetings. Those were occurring for an
attempted expansion which was compared to the develop-
ment of “four and a half Home Depot stores” in that ecologi-
cally sensitive residential area. In return, “[F]ellowship sup-
porters have compared church opponents to Nazis” (Russell,
1999)
• Midway through my stay at Hidden Valley, a fellow devotee
left the ashram to join the Peace Corps. Within a few weeks
of that departure, the head monk led a satsanga. There, we
were told that anyone who leaves the ashram to work for
world peace would have been doing more good if he had
stayed and done “Gurudeva’s work” at the monastery
• In related matters, the nearly functionally illiterate ashram
administrator, possessing a mere sixth-grade reading level,
once opined in a satsanga that “scientists who use their intel-
ligence to ‘get famous,’ rather than for seeking God, are
misusing that intelligence.” A former administrator had simi-
larly asserted that “Einstein’s intuition failed him in his later
years,” in that the great scientist allegedly “wasn’t able to
see” that the accepted indeterministic quantum theory was
right. (That formulation is indeed not “the last word,” as
David Bohm’s Nobel-caliber work has shown. Thus, “Ein-
stein’s intuition” was right, where these ochre-robed admin-
istrators, and many of today’s physicists, are confidently
wrong.)
The certainty in that regard presumably stemmed from
the purported “wholistic” correspondences between inde-
terministic quantum theory and Eastern religion/meditation.
Those have been espoused only since the mid-’70s by misled
authors such as Fritjof Capra and Amit Goswami, and
quoted approvingly in some of SRF’s publications. Goswami
in turn once wrote a complimentary letter to SRF, praising
Yogananda’s writings. Amit’s non-fiction musings on
“quantum consciousness,” though, would have been better
published as explicit science fiction. For, in reality, such
“correspondences” are at best fortuitous, and can more rea-
sonably be regarded as arising from mere wishful thinking,

on the part of individuals having next to no understanding of
metaphysics.
In any case, how does one best use one’s intelligence
“for God”? By entering the ashrams and willingly doing
what one is told to do by one’s spiritual superiors, of course
• At a “monks only” gathering at the SRF headquarters around
Christmas of 1998, one of the maternal members of the
Board of Directors was said to have favored those assembled
with a joke: “What is an atheist? A member of a non-prophet
religion.” The clever riddle was proudly retold in the ashram
at a satsanga, as a “Christmas gift” from those holy, wise
and “spiritually advanced” mother-figures. And all gathered
there laughed dutifully, not realizing that the line itself is
simply a bastardization of a classic George Carlin observa-
tion, i.e., that “atheism is a non-prophet organization”
• One evening, the monk who runs the SRF postulant (i.e.,
“new monk”) ashram graced HV as a guest speaker. One of
the points that he brought up, from his unique perspective as
head of that monastery, was that “the people most likely to
leave the ashram after taking some degree of monastic vows
are those who are the most independent.” While that is un-
doubtedly true, the clear implication was that independence
and the ability to think for oneself are bad things, when in
reality they are the only way of doing anything original in
this world. Worse, suffocating attitudes such as that allergy
to independence turn the unthinking following of other peo-
ple’s blind guesses and bad advice into an “ego-killing” vir-
tue. They further paint the inability to so blindly follow,
against one’s own better judgment, what one knows to be
wrong, as being a sin.
• Each one of the SRF line of leaders/gurus—their “popes”—
from Daya Mata back to Krishna, are regarded by obedient
SRF devotees as being infallible, and simply “working in
mysterious ways” when it comes to any seemingly question-
able actions on their parts. I, too, once foolishly viewed them
thusly. For, such regard is simply what I had been taught
was correct, by persons who I assumed would never deliber-

ately mislead me, as I would never have lied to them.
As Margery Wakefield (1993) noted of her own and
others’ involvement in Scientology:
I had made the fatal unconscious assumption that

since I was honest and had good motives, then others
must be too
• James J. Lynn, personally chosen by Yogananda to be SRF’s

second president, was a married man. That is, married be-
fore, during and after Yogananda gave him the title of Rajasi
Janakananda. (His wife, however, was “both mentally and
physically unwell,” and was not supportive of his connection
with Self-Realization Fellowship [Mata, 1992].) That fact,
however, is conspicuously absent from the relevant litera-
ture, e.g., from the SRF-published biography of Lynn’s life.
That anomaly was brought up by one of the HV resi-
dents in a satsanga period. The justification which the ash-
ram administrator provided for the lack of publication of that
information was simply, and predictably, that “that’s the way
the Board of Directors and Daya Mata want it done”
• The degree to which one is expected to “respect one’s eld-
ers” as a good and obedient devotee of SRF was underscored
by the following (real) exchange, quoted during a sermon at
Hidden Valley:
Elder: “How are you?”

Youthful Inferior: “I’m fine. How are you?”
Elder (disgusted at the impudence): “Are you a doc-
tor?”
• Or, consider the changes made to the proffered definitions of

pronam/pranam over the years, in Chapter 40 of the Auto-
biography:
[pronam:] Literally, “holy name,” a word of greeting

among Hindus, accompanied by palm-folded hands
lifted from the heart to the forehead in salutation. A
pronam in India takes the place of the Western greet-

ing by handshaking (Yogananda, 1946).
More recently, however, the meaning of the (substitut-

ed) word has shifted to something more indicative of the re-
spect due the ochre robe:
[pranam:] Lit., “complete salutation,” from Sanskrit

root nam, to salute or bow down; and the prefix pra,
completely. A pranam salutation is made chiefly be-
fore monks and other respected persons (Yogananda,
1998)
• Further, the extent to which questioning is discouraged in the

ashrams is demonstrated by the following example: Early in
my own stay at Hidden Valley, our Thanksgiving meal cen-
tered on a soy-based turkey substitute. Following that feast,
one resident pointed out in a written satsanga question that
that food was loaded with MSG, which many people are al-
lergic to, or develop headaches from. He also informed us
that non-MSG turkey substitutes are readily available, and
requested that the ashram use those instead in the future.
The ashram administrator’s response to that request was
to relate the story of how, in the early days of SRF, the nuns
used to work “all night” (in shifts), manually preparing glu-
ten-based meat substitutes for their festive occasions. He
concluded by saying that he didn’t want the kitchen at HV to
have to work all night in similar preparations (not that they
would have had to, but anyway). Thus, the ashram would
continue serving the MSG-laced products.
And all assembled smiled knowingly, that anyone
would so foolishly try to improve the ashram, and “resist
what God and Guru had given us” there
• At other times, the HV administrator related his own experi-
ence of having entered the ashrams in the 1950s as a “health
nut,” and of being concerned with the poor food being
served there. Upon bringing that up with a senior monk, the
latter’s response was simply, “What Master gives, you take.”
That advice sounds relatively fine, until one considers that
over Easter (in 1996, when I first spent a month at Hidden

Valley), “Master/God gave us”—a group of steadfast vege-
tarians—a box of donuts containing lard.
Amazingly, although Yogananda very explicitly taught
that the consumption of white flour and white sugar is un-
healthy, both of those are staples in the ashram diet. Indeed,
sugar was sometimes even added to freshly squeezed orange
juice, and whole wheat flour was all but entirely absent. The
explanation which the ashram administrator gave regarding
that discrepancy was that Yogananda’s advice on diet was
allegedly meant to apply only to the specific group of people
to which he had been speaking at the time. Personally, I
think that’s nonsense: Yogananda regularly encouraged his
followers to eat only “unsulphured” fruit, for example. To-
day, that would equate to it being certified organic. Yet one
will find (to my knowledge) no examples of that in the HV
cafeteria (other than the produce which they grow them-
selves, which is close to being organic).
The Hidden Valley menu, inconsistent with Yoganan-
da’s teachings, is just the product of a cultural lowest com-
mon denominator among their kitchen staff. It is not “what
Master gives them,” nor did Yogananda’s dietary advice ap-
ply only to “meat and potatoes” people fifty years ago
• One of SRF’s respected monastic brothers will typically put
up to eighty hours of rehearsal into a Convocation speech—
even to the point of practicing facial expressions and hand
gestures, according to the head monk at Hidden Valley.
There is nothing wrong with such preparedness, of course.
The majority of the audience at those events, however, un-
doubtedly assumes that those lectures are given “from intui-
tion,” with little or no preparation—on the basis of the
monk’s fifty-plus years of meditation—as Yogananda ex-
plicitly taught and practiced. SRF’s questionable billing (in
their Convocation literature and tapes) of those as “informal
talks,” when in reality they are highly scripted, does nothing
to discourage that perception
• The same monk praised the devotional “receptivity” or “ab-
sorptive listening” of audiences in India, in contrast to the
“intellectual inquisitiveness/weighing” and analysis which

Western audiences give to the words of saints and sages. (By
contrast, Arthur Koestler’s [1960] The Lotus and the Robot,
Gita Mehta’s [1979] Karma Cola and Sarah Macdonald’s
delightful [2003] Holy Cow all offer stunning revelations
about what life in India, both inside and outside of her ash-
rams, is really like, from a skeptical perspective. Strelley’s
[1987] The Ultimate Game does the same, from a less jaun-
diced view.) As Radha (1978) dangerously expressed it:
The Eastern mind does not make the clear distinction

between intuition and intellect as the Western mind
tends to do. The difficulty comes for the Westerner
when there is an over-emphasis upon the intellect at
the cost of the intuition. The simple person who is
unencumbered by intellectual concepts is more recep-
tive. What can be done to remain receptive and not to
have the intellect continually interfering? Stop intel-
lectualizing and just receive.
There are, however, other possible explanations for

such Eastern “non-intellectual receptivity”:
The person buying [pan] puts it in his cheek, like a

wad of chewing tobacco. It’s said to have speed in it,
which gives the user a slightly glazed look and, after
an initial burst of energy, a sluggishness and a sway-
ing walk.
Over the years it amused me that many freshly-
arrived Westerners would refer to the “meditative”
look on the Indians they saw, when, in reality, what
they were seeing more often than not was the result
of chewing this narcotic (Strelley, 1987).
Strelley herself, prior to entering Rajneesh’s ashrams,

ran drugs for a living; she knows what she is talking about.
One is, of course, always free to glorify the effects of
one’s preferred narcotics. One is not equally free, however,
to confuse widespread, drug-induced stupor with meditative
spirituality, celebrating the former in the guise of the latter.
Nor may one then lament how “the West” too often lacks the
same “Cheech and Chong”-like receptivity! And let’s not
even get started on the hallucinogenic use of peyote (Das,
1997) and magic mushrooms (Allegro, 1970) in religious
rites, in both East and West.
Not unrelated to the (non-narcotic) “mindless devotion”
found in the East is I. K. Taimni’s native observation that the
bane of (conformist psychology) East Indian thought has al-
ways been the tendency to accept anything when it has been
stated by an authority, without further questioning.
In any case, the attempt to intellectually understand and
“separate the wheat from the chaff” is absolutely necessary if
one is to retain any ability to think for oneself, or avoid swal-
lowing whole every anecdotal tall tale told “in the name of
God.”
Devotion [to the guru] is valued in Vajrayana [i.e.,

Tantric Buddhism] as a means to destroy doubt. Con-
sidered a refuge of ego, doubt is no longer coddled—
it has to be crushed. But if a choice must be made be-
tween doubt and devotion, I think we are better off to
prefer doubt. It is essential to sanity, and therefore to
enlightenment; absolutely nothing in the path should
be shielded from skeptical scrutiny, especially not
devotion (Butterfield, 1994)
• Yogananda founded separate uniformed schools for boys and

girls in India. Hidden Valley’s administrator once publicly
voiced the opinion that Yogananda would definitely have
wanted the same setup implemented in America as well, had
he founded schools here.
Such separation of the genders, of course, could do
nothing to decrease SRF’s concern over homosexual activi-
ties, given that residential boys’ schools are widely re-
nowned for exactly the latter.
It is not surprising that proportionally more gays

would be active in the world of the [Catholic] semi-
nary and rectory.... That is true for any exclusively
male situation—in the army, the non-coed school, the

Boy Scouts (Wills, 2000)
• SRF’s emphasis on the conservation and transmutation of

sexual energy as a means toward effecting spiritual (kunda-
lini) awakenings leads readily to a Catholic-like, guilt-ridden
attitude toward sex on the part of its devout members. For, if
the choice is between sex and spiritual advancement—i.e., if
sexual activity leads one away from God—how could one
not feel guilty about indulging in it? Notwithstanding that, in
response to a satsanga question, the HV ashram administra-
tor once explicitly recommended that anyone who decides
against entering a monastic order for life should get married,
so that his/her ego won’t be strengthened by “being able to
do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.” (As if the “real
world” is so lenient and flexible to one’s desires! and as if
there were a stupider reason to fall in love.) That leads to the
obvious conclusion that, unless one is going to become part
of the official monastic in-group, he shouldn’t even try to
live a hermitic lifestyle, lest he be guilty of being “egoic and
selfish”
• The same administrator asserted in a satsanga that SRF
members shouldn’t even live together before marriage, as it
would “set a bad example” for others’ perceptions of persons
on the spiritual path. As to how a piece of paper called a
marriage license makes cohabitation more acceptable in the
eyes of God, that was never really explained.
One can, however, fairly easily track down the source
for that fossilized position. For, all of it is simply a repetition
of views expressed by SRF’s Brother Anandamoy (1995) in
a recorded talk, in essentially the same words.
Conservative behavior and conformity, then, would ap-
pear to be the order of the day, lest one offend others by
even appearing to “do wrong.” (Even long hair in the ash-
rams is taboo, by Daya Mata’s decree, except for monks in
India. Beards, as I recall, require permission to be sought be-
fore they are grown, unless you entered the ashrams with
one.) Conversely, even positive social change is left to “less
spiritual” others.
“Lost in the ’50s,” or even the ’30s, and proud of it

• Anandamoy (1979) has further said that, owing to the disci-
pline and rules laid down within SRF, “there is no generation
gap in our ashram, though the ages range from eighteen to
over ninety.” That may or may not be true. What can hardly
be denied, however, is that there is surely an analogous “re-
spect gap,” which keeps people just as far apart. That dis-
tance may be based on the length of time one has been in the
ashrams, or the position one occupies, or just the color of
one’s shirt. (Blue = postulant, yellow = brahmachari, orange
= sannyasi.) For, when a blue shirt meets an orange one in
the monastic caste system, there is no doubt as to which one
is more spiritually advanced, and thus more deserving of be-
ing respectfully listened to.
Butterfield (1994) described his own comparable ex-
periences within Trungpa’s Buddhist community:
It is easy to pull rank in an organization where rank is

given tremendous importance by practice levels, of-
fices, and colored pins. When a senior student with a
higher rank than your own betrays you emotionally
or perpetrates some odious piece of arrogance, at
which you express overt resentment and anger, the
situation may then go over into the game of one-
upmanship. The ranking “elder” calls attention to
your resentment as though it were solely the result of
an ego problem characteristic of your inferior prac-
tice level.
Of course, regarding generation gaps, it would be hard

to sustain those in any closed community anyway. For there,
indulgence in the varying popular interests which normally
separate generations are discouraged. Further, any radical
behaviors of the younger generation would be left outside
the ashram gates, in the attempt to make the younger ones as
conservative as the older, rather than having the older gen-
eration meet the younger on the latter’s own terms, or (God
forbid) learn from them. That is, when closed community
life is based around ideas which predate even the “grandfa-
thers” of the community, with all members being expected to

conform to those ideals, there is indeed little to separate the
generations. One may even rightly credit the restrictive rules
of the community for that.
In the “real world,” however, it is exactly the relative
absence of such restrictions that allows for radical social,
scientific and spiritual change. Put another way: If the “real
world” was as conservative, homogeneous and “stuck in the
past” as such orthodox spiritual communities are, nothing
would ever change for the better.
Even just in terms of spirituality, human understanding
has increased tremendously over the past quarter of a cen-
tury. Those increases, however, have not come from the
world’s ashrams. Rather, they have come from people who
were, in general, too independent and creative to tolerate the
suffocating rules and discipline, not merely of those closed
communities, but even of the far less conservative “real
world” itself.
Indeed, radically creative breakthroughs in any field are
far more likely to come from people who “make their own
rules.” Those who enjoy, too much, living within the con-
fines of other people’s discipline, in the misled belief that
such a slow and painful death has anything to do with spiri-
tual advancement, are not the ones to make such contribu-
tions.
Conversely, the idea that “when you are as great as
Gandhi was, you can break the rules, as Gandhi did” has got
it exactly backwards. For, one only becomes “great,” to
whatever degree, by judiciously breaking existing rules—
after having first mastered them—to do things which
wouldn’t have been possible within the accepted constraints.
If one hasn’t ever broken the rules wisely, chances are that
one also hasn’t ever done anything truly original in life.
As the immensely creative Yogananda himself put it:
I follow the rules—as much as I want to, and then I

say, “Down with rules!”....
Now there is more attempt than ever before to
raise the average human being to a desirable level of
culture; but there is always the accompanying danger

of cramping the genius in the straitjacket of the me-
diocre (Yogananda, 1986)
• Interestingly, some Clint Eastwood “spaghetti western”

movies are pre-approved for Hidden Valley ashram viewing
by monks and residents on their monthly movie nights. The
Sound of Music, in contrast, is banned. The reason? In the
latter, Julie Andrews’ character is contemplating life as a
monastic, but then finds “the man of her dreams” and “lives
happily ever after.” Screening such an idealization of roman-
tic love, however, might “put ideas into the heads” of the
people living there.
Guns, however, are evidently relatively okay
• A resident volunteer at HV once remarked within my range
of hearing that “everything you do at Hidden Valley gets
talked about behind your back.” From my own experiences
there, and from hearing my immediate supervisor criticize
the ashram administrator, behind his back, as being “long-
winded,” and offer endless critiques of the ashram food, I
know too well that that observation is valid. (The aspect of
his sharp eyes directed toward me included being critiqued,
unsolicited of course, on the length of my hair and the shab-
biness of my clothes. As Thoreau once remarked, however:
“Beware of enterprises that require new clothes.”) That
widespread behavior exists among a group of people sup-
posedly concerned with their own self-improvement. In
practice, however, they inadvertently make a strong case for
defining a yogi as “a person intent on killing everyone’s ego
except his own.”
Indeed, the ashram administrator once stated his view
on positive thinking as the idea that “failure flattens one’s
ego,” and is thus supposedly a good thing. Aside from the
problem that Yogananda taught nothing like that, the obvi-
ous converse of that idea is that to succeed too much would
interfere with the “killing of one’s ego” that ostensibly con-
stitutes spiritual progress. Thus, implicitly, even if a man is
successful, he should not feel too good about those triumphs.
It does not take an advanced understanding of human psy-
chology to see that, in the face of those taboos, the easy way
to make oneself feel good is by “cutting off the heads of oth-
ers”—albeit behind their backs, for to do it to their faces
would make one a “bad disciple”
• Through my work in assisting with Hidden Valley’s attempt
at setting up a software programming shop during my stay
there, I was further informed that I was “impatient” and pos-
sessed a “big head,” simply for getting things done faster
than they (and God) wanted them done. I was also explicitly
told that when I had meditated more and become more spiri-
tually advanced, I wouldn’t feel the need to be creative in
writing books and music. That is, I would just “serve Mas-
ter’s work” by donating money/labor to it, without presum-
ing to do anything original or truly creative in life.
Yogananda (1986), of course, taught exactly the oppo-
site:
Do some creative work every day. Writing is good

for developing creative ability and will power.... I am
always seeking to accomplish something new. Being
creative is more difficult, of course, than following a
mechanical existence, but when your will battles with
new ideas it gains more strength.
In contrast to that, but in accord with the attitudes pre-

sent within today’s SRF, Butterfield (1994) observed the fol-
lowing within the context of his own discipleship under
Chögyam Trungpa:
Originality is unwelcome; it is regarded as an im-

pulse of the ego which must be processed out of the
mind before enlightenment can occur. “If you find
something in my talk that is not in Trungpa’s writ-
ings,” said a program coordinator, “then it’s just my
ego.”
In any case, “big-headed” experiences such as the above

have led me to the firm conclusion that most of the “patience
of saints” comes from them simply not trying to get anything
done on schedule. Or, from them being too dumb to know

how inefficiently they’re working. In contexts such as those,
it would indeed be easy to be “patient,” get nothing done,
waste other people’s donated money, and take that as a vir-
tue
• I left Hidden Valley just after the original exposé (“Return of
the Swami”: Russell, 1999) of SRF and Ananda was pub-
lished in the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles. That tim-
ing was just coincidental, but it did allow me to witness the
“sagely” analysis of the story given, unsolicited, by the ash-
ram administrator. That reading, then, consisted simply of
his mention in that context of several monks he had known
who had “fallen” due to the temptation of women. There
was, of course, no mention in his analysis of the horrible (al-
leged) abuse of power on the part of those monks. Nor was
there any hint of the despicable reported response to that
scandal on the part of the “compassionate, saintly, God-
realized” SRF leaders, as quoted earlier.
The same aforementioned “sage” referred to the news-
magazine in which the above information regarding SRF
was printed (i.e., the New Times L.A.) as being merely a
“smut paper.” He further regarded the article in question as
being simply an attempt to “dig up dirt” on Self-Realization
Fellowship, as a means of thwarting their planned expansion.
That is, it was, in his words, “garbage” or “trash,” not worth
sticking one’s nose into, particularly when one has been
warned of its nature by someone ostensibly in a position to
truthfully judge.
The very same respected monk would, I was later told,
deliberately drive away in his golf cart when it came time to
take his daily medicine, pretending not to see the herniated
ashram resident who was chasing after him with that for his
own good
• The Environmental Impact Report required for the physical
expansion of the Mount Washington headquarters was simi-
larly and explicitly viewed by that administrator as being just
a community stalling tactic. In fact, his response to that ob-
stacle was simply that “people will find a reason to oppose
SRF,” as if there were no other reasons for that EIR to be

done!
Indeed, with regard to one of the relatively recent SRF
publications—I believe it was their version of Omar Khay-
yam’s Rubaiyat—it had otherwise been noted that one of the
artists and SRF members working on the illustrations experi-
enced relevant health problems as the publication date drew
near. Those difficulties were explicitly chalked up to Satan
trying to thwart the spread of truth through Self-Realization
Fellowship. Given that, it would be inconsistent for SRF to
not have viewed any opposition to the Mount Washington
expansion as being literally devil-inspired. One would ex-
pect them to have exactly the same attitude toward the pre-
sent “evil, demonic smut” book.
Even as early as the summer of 1951, Master often

told me that Rajasi’s life was in grave danger and that
Satan was trying to destroy his body. When I asked
Master why Satan wanted to destroy Rajasi’s body he
answered, “Because he has and is still doing so much
for the work and is helping a lot of souls back to God
as His Divine instrument and Satan is trying to de-
stroy it so he won’t do any more” (Mata, 1992).
The phrase “paranoid belief system” springs to mind.

Interestingly, the Moonies have a similar view of reality
and the influence of Satan as is described immediately
above:
“Martha, I have to whisper [from laryngitis],” I apol-

ogized.
“No, you don’t! It’s just your concept!”
“I’m sorry, I can hardly talk. I don’t mean to be
negative.”
“It’s SATAN controlling you. If you yell ‘OUT
SATAN’ all the way to campus, you’ll be fine,” Mar-
tha ordered (Underwood and Underwood, 1979).
Or, as Yogananda (1986) described that same evil

force’s attack on him:
I saw the black form of Satan, horrible, with a catlike

face and tail. It leaped on my chest, and my heart
stopped beating
• Daya Mata herself foretold (1971) the following global tri-

als, as seen by her in vision:
[The Divine] indicated that all mankind would face a

very dark time during which the evil force would
seek to engulf the world.... [T]he world ... would ul-
timately emerge from the threatening dark cloud of
karma, but mankind would first have to do its part by
turning to God.
The question then came up as to why this and other

prophesied catastrophes had not yet come to pass in the dec-
ades since their prediction. The catch-all response given was
that the world was getting “extensions” to that, based on the
meditations of its more spiritually advanced beings (e.g.,
Daya Mata herself).
Compare:
The leader [of a small religious group], Mrs. Keech,

claimed that she received messages from beings on
another planet and that she had been informed that an
earthquake and flood would signal the end of the
world one day in December. But those who had been
committed to Mrs. Keech would be saved by a space-
ship the night before. On the appointed night, the fol-
lowers waited anxiously for the spaceship and of
course it didn’t come.... The group was highly upset
when midnight came and went with no sight of a
spaceship. But then Mrs. Keech claimed to have re-
ceived a message saying that the devotion of her and
her followers had been sufficient to avert the impend-
ing disaster (Winn, 2000).
Or this, via Elizabeth Clare Prophet and the apocalyptic

Church Universal and Triumphant:
Ms. Prophet captured national headlines with her re-

ported prediction that the end of civilization would
occur on April 23, 1990. Prophet denies having set
the date, but local residents disagree. “She has post-
poned the date at least four times over the last year,”
said Richard Meyer, a hardware store owner. “Every
time it doesn’t happen, she says it is because of
church prayers” (Nickell, 1998).
Or this, from an admittedly false former psychic:
We always gave ourselves an out, of course, in the

event that the prophecy didn’t materialize. The “vi-
brations” had changed, we would say, or people’s
prayers had averted the gloom and doom that we had
warned about but that hadn’t come to pass (Keene,
1977)
• SRF explicitly prides itself on being a spiritual organization

“run according to business principles.” Hidden Valley re-
ceives the vast majority of its labor freely from volunteers,
and provides no extravagances in food or shelter for them.
Nevertheless, their business segment was barely breaking
even financially, during the time that I spent with them. Yet,
all the while they were professing “intuitive” guidance in
their managerial decisions, and equating obedience to them-
selves and to the higher leaders of the organization with obe-
dience to God and Guru.
Indeed, things were so tight financially toward the end
of my stay in the ashram that the head monk and my imme-
diate supervisor there discussed, without my input, having
me spend my own money to provide a second computer for
myself to work on, in the client/server programming that I
was doing for them. (I had already provided one, for $1000
U.S., prior to that.) Learning of that, I informed that oppres-
sively negative, short-tempered and visibly neurotic immedi-
ate supervisor that I wasn’t in a financial position to absorb
that expense.
That micromanaging misfit’s favorite expression, in the
midst of Yogananda’s “positive thinking” teachings, was
“Life sucks, and then you die.” Indeed, in his presence of

undreamed-of-negativity it was not safe to voice even guard-
ed optimism. Toward the end of my stay there, on more than
one occasion when I would see that defective little gentle-
man coming across the ashram grounds to accost me with
one aspect or another of his endless pessimism, I literally felt
the urge to vomit. I have still not recovered from what he put
me through. In all seriousness, I have never encountered a
less spiritual environment than I was forced to deal with dur-
ing my six months working under that particular monk.
In any case, with regard to him and the head monk
“helping” me to spend my own money for the ashram’s
good, I further suggested to the former that if money was
that tight for them, then the three of us should get together
and talk about the possibility of me loaning the ashram sev-
eral hundred dollars from my own meager savings, to be re-
paid when I left.
Amazingly, the same weasel stopped me later that day,
to inform me that he and the head monk had discussed the
situation—again without me, of course!—and might just ask
me to provide a computer monitor instead! (I would then
take that heavy item back with me to Canada when I left, ac-
cording to their autocratic plans.)
All of that transpired while I was already providing
sixty hours a week of extremely efficiently done, profes-
sional-level programming, in return for only a $30 U.S. per
month allowance.
(The required ashram work week was actually less than
thirty-five hours. I put in the extra time, in spite of my im-
mediate supervisor’s unsolicited discouraging of me from
doing that, simply because [i] I enjoyed the work, [ii] it des-
perately needed to be done, and [iii] the sooner I completed
the training projects there, the sooner I could get the hell
away from that oppressive, micromanaging jackass. Have
you ever had someone literally looking over your shoulder,
for minutes/aeons at a time, while you were trying to write
code? Thanks to Hidden Valley, I have lived that dysfunc-
tional “Dilbert Zone.”)
In all fairness, though, the $30 allowance was still better

than average. By contrast, most ashrams—e.g., Radha’s
Yasodhara, Rama’s Himalayan International Institute, Anan-
da and Findhorn—charge you significant amounts of money
(currently up to $300 per month, in HI’s case) for the privi-
lege of doing menial work for them in “karma yoga” retreats,
generally with shared accommodations. (People living in
Jetsunma’s and Rajneesh’s early ashrams likewise supported
themselves financially. That was in addition to donating to
the organization and paying for Rajneesh’s encounter
groups, etc.) One of the attractions that many people feel to-
ward SRF is exactly that it evinces less such explicit focus
on money
• In the midst of all that top-heavy yet inadequate manage-
ment, I was informed—unsolicited—by the non-monastic
project manager of that enterprise, that the whole program-
ming venture was sure to succeed. That assurance was given
on the basis of the “enlightened” (yet medication-fleeing)
ashram administrator’s visualizing of “blueprints in the
ether” for those plans in his meditations. Compare Daya
Mata’s (1971) confidence:
The blueprint for this work [i.e., SRF] was set in the
ether by God; it was founded at His behest, and His
love and His will sustain and guide it. I know this be-
yond doubt.
“And God will lead the way.”

Indeed, the relevant manager’s expectation was that the
current project would bring in a thousand hours of work per
month. That, at least, is what he explicitly requested from the
associated devotee salesman, for an anticipated program-
ming staff of half a dozen people. The contract I signed fur-
ther specified that I would be paid $30 U.S. per hour. That
works out to over a third of a million dollars of anticipated
gross income per year, just to cover the salaries. Plus, the
project manager was already building a house near the ash-
ram, with the intention of deriving his full income from the
software shop. Thus, with his cut, the annual gross would
have had to be around half a million dollars for there to be

anything left over for the ashram.
Such rosy pictures of the future, however, were not to
come to pass.
Not even close.
I spent three months working with the external project
manager on that “content management” programming,
against the foot-dragging of my immediate supervisor. (By
the end of that period, even the hardly brilliant project man-
ager was floating the idea of replacing that defective indi-
vidual.) After completing that “training in negativity” period
at HV, I returned to Canada, and waited for the promised
telecommuting work to arrive. And waited. For two full
months. With not a single hour of paying work provided.
I was subsequently informed, by the salesman, that the
external company which was supposed to have been the liai-
son with the outside world for providing contracts had “gone
under.”
Half a million dollars. Zero dollars. “Divinely guided.”
“Blueprint, schmueprint.”
Again, the Monty Python reference:
[Eric Idle character:] Minister, may I put the first

question to you? In your plan, “A Better Britain for
Us,” you claimed that you would build eighty-eight
thousand million billion houses a year in the Greater
London area alone. In fact, you’ve built only three in
the last fifteen years. Are you a bit disappointed with
this result?
[Graham Chapman character:] No, no. I’d like to an-
swer this question if I may in two ways. Firstly in my
normal voice and then in a kind of silly, high-pitched
whine.
After all that, my entry on the Dilbert Zone website for

March 22, 2001—“Biggest Promises Broken By Your Boss”
—went as follows:
TRUE: Full-time work, six-figure [Cdn.] salary tele-

commuting. REALITY: No work in first two months,
ended up $1000 away from living on the street.
—The Artist Formerly Known As Bert
It placed in the top five.
This life is a cosmic motion picture (Yogananda,

1986).
“I laughed. I cried. If you see only one guru this

year....”
• And just when you think it can’t get any worse, it turns out
that one of Charles Manson’s murderous accomplices in the
late ’60s—still imprisoned to this day—had spent time in the
SRF ashrams as a nun:
During her freshman and sophomore years at Mon-

rovia High School, Leslie [Van Houten] was one of
the homecoming princesses. She tried out again her
junior year, but this time she didn’t make it. Bitter
over the rejection, she ran away with [her boyfriend,
Bobby] Mackey to Haight-Ashbury. The scene there
frightened her, however, and she returned home to
finish high school and to complete a year of secretar-
ial training. Mackey, in the meantime, had become a
novitiate priest in the Self Realization Fellowship. In
an attempt to continue their relationship, Leslie be-
came a novitiate nun, giving up both drugs and sex.
She lasted about eight months before breaking with
both Mackey and the yoga group (Bugliosi and Gen-
try, 1975).
The fact that Van Houten—the explicit namesake of

The Simpsons’ Milhouse—was let into the ashrams at all, of
course, says nothing positive about the ability of the “ad-
vanced souls” at SRF to evaluate others’ character, via intui-
tion or otherwise. Indeed, less concern about sexual orienta-
tion and blind obedience to an “infallible” dead guru or liv-
ing mother-figure, and more about character and the many

positive aspects of independence, would serve the organiza-
tion far better
• And just when you think it really can’t get any worse, you
discover the white supremacist Jost (Joseph) Turner (d.
1996), founder of the National Socialist Kindred. For, Turner
received kriya initiation from SRF, and then lived for two
years in
a small intentional community in northern California

which was founded by one of Yoganandas [sic] direct
disciples.... He foresaw the importance of Yoganan-
das [sic] cooperative communities, and he realised
[sic] that it was his mission to fulfill that vision. To-
day, his intentional community is probably the largest
and most successfull [sic] in the world (Turner,
2001).
Turner went on to evolve and teach his own version of

“Aryan Kriya,” claiming guidance and inspiration from Ba-
baji in that endeavor, and regarding Hitler as a “semi-divine
religious leader.”
Jost declared that Yogananda was not anti-Hitler and

supported the non-interventionist America First
Movement during the Second World War. He upheld
the Korean War against communism and “foresaw
the massive problems” of multiculturalism (Good-
rick-Clarke, 2003).
Well, who knows. For someone like Yogananda, who

was notably frightened of “Godless” communism and sup-
portive of the “God-fearing” fascist Mussolini ... who
knows. He had, in any case, been planning on “visiting” both
Hitler and Mussolini in 1936, following his tour of India, at
the start of WWII (Inner Culture, 1935)
• Finally, to put one more (though, sadly, not the last) nail in
the coffin of Undead Inadequate Management:
With regar[d] to the first edition of the Autobiogra-

phy of a Yogi, Yogananda had copyrighted this edi-
tion in his own name, not SRF’s. When SRF renewed
the copyright on the first edition, they renewed it in
the name of SRF which voided the copyright and put
it in the public domain. Now that the original AY is
in public domain, it is now on the Internet at
http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda [this is Kri-
yananda’s publishing house].
The renewal of a copyright is a simple matter of
keeping track of when it expires and under what
name it was registered. This is an inexcusable blun-
der (Dakota, 1998).
And so goes the “silly, high-pitched whine” which is all

that remains of Yogananda’s once-averred “Mighty Cosmic
Om” within today’s Self-Realization Fellowship.
Imagine the Catholic Church, minus its pedophilia but
keeping all of the other problems—surely including ones
which haven’t yet made it into the news—with just a slightly
different set of “original Christianity” beliefs. Right there,
you’ve got a good approximation to today’s SRF.
“Everything I ever needed to know about religion I
learned,” if not in kindergarten, at least from Monty Py-
thon’s Life of Brian.
And yet, Python’s John Cleese, ironically, has spoken in
support of New Age topics at Esalen, and elsewhere quoted
the Russian-American “crazy wisdom” master George Gurd-
jieff approvingly.
***
Although I regularly skipped the “mandatory” group meditations at

Hidden Valley, the head monk there explicitly invited me, before I
left, to come back whenever I wanted to—I did not leave on bad
terms with the organization. Indeed, during my stay, several of the
office monks there offered, unsolicited, to write letters of recommen-
dation for me, if I ever wanted to apply for a paid position, working at
the Mother Center.
It was only after decompressing for several months from the op-
pressive weight of that experience, and comparing in detail the non-
sense I observed there with the relatively benign “evil ways of the
real world,” that I came to the conclusion that I had never met a com-
plete fool in my life, outside of that setting. (I have since met and
worked for half a dozen others, but at least none of them had “God on
their side.”) Beyond that, it was only in discovering the SRF Walrus
(2004) website in late 2001 that I began to understand that I was nei-
ther the only nor the first person to regard getting involved with that
organization as the worst mistake of my life. (The Cult Busters—SRF
Division site has since surpassed the Walrus, in terms of the quality of
its postings and their non-censored freedom of expression.)
On the bright side, I did meet a decent, direct descendant of Cap-
tain Morgan, the rum-runner, during that same stay. That association
has indeed, in recent years, endeared me to some of the Captain’s
finer pain-numbing products which, ironically, I had never felt any
need to consume prior to spending too much time at Hidden Valley.
***
In the best of all possible readings, then, naïvely taking Yogananda to

be everything that he and his disciples claim him to be, SRF shows
how badly a mere two generations of followers, in a short half cen-
tury, can mess things up. (The gospels were not written down until a
comparable amount of time after Jesus’ crucifixion. For the Buddha
and Ramakrishna, too, the extant stories were not recollected until
well after their deaths. No one should then imagine that comparable
degrees of distortion as are demonstrably found in SRF do not exist
across all of those sanitized scriptures and hagiographies. Conversely,
if Ramakrishna and Yogananda were as mixed-up as we have seen,
what of the Buddha? Or what of the mischievous, amorous Krishna
and his “gopis,” assuming that there is actually some factual basis to
his mythological life? And what of Lao Tzu and Confucius? Are any
of them more worthy of admiration than are the likes of Sai Baba and
Adi Da?)
In Yogananda’s legacy, we have ashram leaders who, after fifty
years of meditation, cannot distinguish between the subconscious and
the superconscious mind—teaching that pruning a tree or driving a
car (like Zen’s view of practiced archery) are acts of intuition, rather
than learned skills. And the next generation of lemmings, if they dis-
agree with that or with anything else of what they are being taught,
are simply exhibiting “ego.”
We also have “perfected” Board of Directors members who
work in such “mysterious ways” that they require eighty hours of
preparation to give an informal talk, or three years to approve the pur-
chase of a fax machine. (Those, of course, are the same “sages” who
will have been “pharaohs in Egypt,” etc.) Plus, we have ashrams, run
according to “business principles,” which can hardly break even fi-
nancially, even with receiving huge amounts of free labor.
If you “ran Egypt” in a previous life, you would surely be able to
make good, common-sense business decisions in operating a simple,
nonprofit ashram with free labor, no?
Of course, ashram-run businesses elsewhere are typically equally
unsuccessful, for exactly the same reasons. Indeed, failed financial
ventures under the far-seeing Jetsunma’s leadership reportedly in-
cluded a typesetting business, much vaunted by her as being a “sure
thing,” “partly because of the auspicious year of its inception.” Also,
a microwaveable female hair care device with built-in gel packs, set
to retail for $14.95 and fated to sell “millions” of units—according to
a dream which Jetsunma had. (When the internal, ashram company
producing that product shut down, it was reportedly over half a mil-
lion dollars in debt.) Finally, a New Age rock group, with the forty-
something Jetsunma as its off-key lead singer (Sherrill, 2000).
Hidden Valley, more conservatively, limited itself to growing
herbs, vegetables and hibiscus, processing third-party soil analysis
numbers, writing software, and manufacturing meditation armrests
and portable altars. Of those, the hibiscus, soil analysis and software
were all supposed to be “cash cows.” (That was the specific phrase
which the external project manager used in referring to the antici-
pated, web-based soil analysis income.) In practice, however, each
simply gave support to the classic wag’s observation that “we’re los-
ing money on every sale, but we’ll make it up in volume.”
The San Francisco Zen Center’s Alaya Stitchery likewise re-
ceived essentially free labor (in return for room and board, etc.), yet
often “lost money month to month, though its deficits went unnoticed
for several years ... ‘no one seemed to notice that we were essentially
paying to sell those clothes’” (Downing, 2001).
In Rajneesh’s communities, further:
Few ashramites worked at the jobs they’d been trained to do,

Ph.D.’s collecting garbage, architects working as handymen,
filmmakers as shoemakers, and ex-junkies as department heads
(Franklin, 1992).
Hidden Valley skillfully incorporated the same principle. That is,

they were training accountants who possessed no ability to take crea-
tive leaps in thought, to be computer programmers, while they simul-
taneously had established programmers doing office or garden work.
Plaster buddhas or greenhouse hibiscus; hair care or soil analy-
sis; clothing or subsidized restaurants; East coast Poolesville or West
coast Escondido, or up north to San Francisco or anything in between
—all are equally “divinely guided”; all are equally following
“schmueprints in the ether.” The frequent failures of those schemes,
then, simply get written off under the idea that “99% of what happens
in the ashram is just for the [ego-killing] learning experiences of its
residents anyway.” Or, those flops get blamed on the residents’ work-
ing off of bad karma, or their “lack of merit.” Why worry, then, about
turning a profit, even if you’re simultaneously bragging that the or-
ganization is being run “according to business principles,” and that
your religion will be the one to save the world from the clutches of
Satan and other black cats?
And, to top it all off, there is always unsolicited pressure (at
Hidden Valley and elsewhere) to the effect that “the more you medi-
tate, the less you’ll feel the need to be creative.” In the limit of that, of
course, one would be a God-realized vegetable, exhibiting neither
independence nor creativity, and fit only to contribute money or free
labor to “the Guru’s work.” (Is it any wonder that these places get
called “cults” by people looking in from the outside?)
Further, to resist or question any of that nonsense gets one
branded as having a “big head,” by persons who themselves have not
a creative atom in their bodies.
In such a context, probably the best that one can say, with all
possible sarcasm, is: Think of how much worse it might all be if Di-
vine Mother and a lineage of avatar gurus weren’t guiding their ac-
tions!
Of course, the same best-case (reincarnational) scenario would
raise additional questions with regard to karma and the overall behav-
ior which one might expect from avatars and their ilk—e.g., in terms
of beheading Saxons and Shakespearian bawdy. For, if Yogananda

was freed many lifetimes ago, yet was incarnated relatively recently
as both William the Conqueror and William Shakespeare, then both
of those—as reincarnations of Arjuna, if nothing else—must have
been either avatars or very close to such “perfection.”
One might yet feebly try to excuse William the Bastard’s non-
saintly behaviors by suggesting that they were a product of his politi-
cal position and period of history. That is, if one is willing to neglect
his violently ill-tempered behavior toward his wife, which can be
given no such absolution.
Fine. And Shakespeare’s equally non-saintly bawdiness was then
comparably “someone else’s fault” ... how? For, the better selections
from amongst those “cunt’ry matters” would hardly have been out of
place in Dan Savage’s syndicated “Savage Love” sex-fetish advice
column in the New Times L.A. (and elsewhere), which to SRFers was
explicitly merely a “smut paper.” Yet, “conquering” karma does not
transmute to sexual karma except via double entendres. And besides,
avatars are not supposed to carry karma from one lifetime to another,
much less create new karma in each succeeding “compassionate in-
carnation,” as Daya Mata (1971) herself explained:
When any soul, even a Christ, descends into the world of dual-
ity and takes on a human form, he thereby accepts certain limi-
tations. But taking on the compulsions of the law of karma is
not one of them. He still remains above and beyond all karma.
At any rate, getting thee “to a nunnery,” whether run by SRF or

otherwise is, as we have seen too clearly and too often, sadly more
likely to increase one’s problems than to offer balm for them. Doth
Ophelia’s river, then, beckon?
Of course, in Shakespeare’s day “nunnery” meant both “brothel”
and “monastery.” Since Hamlet could not have been telling Ophelia
to avoid sex by going to a brothel, however, the monastic meaning
was evidently the intended one.
Again, though, with irony—damned irony—probably no one has
ever been driven to the madhouse via the whorehouse. (That is, aside
from untreated syphilis which, again, is not absent from the holy
Shakespeare’s plays.) The same claim, however, clearly cannot be
made with regard to our world’s monasteries and their guru-figures.
For they, indeed, have surely contributed to more than one sincere
seeker’s literal and clinical depression and madness, via psychologi-
cal binds, alleged spiritually incestuous sexual abuse, crippling nega-
tivity and more. All “in the name of God,” and for the purported
“benefit of all sentient beings.”
***
What, though—no widespread, hot ‘n’ heavy sex in the SRF ash-
rams? Do the monks not sneak out over the Mother Center walls
down to Sunset Boulevard on sultry summer nights, their monthly
allowance in hand? Do voluptuous young nuns not pair off with each
other’s holy genitals for much-needed, slap-happy release? Is it really
all service, meditation, and sleeping with one’s dry monastic hands
outside the pure white sheets?
Well, the allegation has actually been made (in Russell, 2001)
that Yogananda may have been “screwing everything in sight” when
alive. My own reaction to that is probably the reflex of the majority of
already disillusioned ex-disciples of their respective “perfect mas-
ters.” That is, half of me cannot take the allegation seriously, given
the many testimonials to his integrity from his disciples. Testimony,
that is, such as from one of SRF’s most respected monastic brothers,
who “speaks joyfully of his guru’s overwhelming love, humility and
gentleness, his deep respect for others and his boundless desire to
serve” (in Watanabe, 1998).
Of course, the brother in question, having entered the ashrams
nearly a quarter century after Yogananda’s passing, never actually
met the “avatar.” That is, he is simply parroting the party line, speak-
ing what he would imagine to be true. But that is par for the course in
spirituality.
Regardless, the other half of me would actually like for every al-
leged indiscretion on the part of “the Bastard and the Bard” to be true,
for the whole mess to have been pure baloney from the beginning.
As a bottom line, then, SRF in its current state can take a (for-
mer) disciple such as myself, who would never have dreamed of be-
ing disloyal to the guru or his organization, and turn him into some-
one who would like for the worst accusations against them to be true.
That is, if they could change me in this way, they could change any-
one—or, at least, change anyone who was willing to see.
Yogananda’s claim to be able to walk on fire might only make

him a fool, for genuinely believing that his purported spiritual ad-
vancement, rather than the laws of physics, were the source of that
“yogic power.” Likewise for his many wildly wrong prophecies and
his endorsements of Therese Neumann and of his “Perfume Saint.”
His comparable “ability” to stop his pulse in one wrist, however,
unless one takes that as a real parapsychological phenomenon—
which I do not—makes him something much worse.
Personally, even with that, I still consider Yogananda to have
been among the less harmful of the spiritual leaders covered herein,
comparable to the Dalai Lama, Aurobindo or Ramana Maharshi if the
allegations about his “harem” are false, or somewhere below them if
those claims are true. Being the “sanest man in the asylum,” however,
is hardly something to crow about.
And even in that grouping, one would keep in mind that the
claims made by both Aurobindo and Maharshi leave one with very
little confidence in their respective abilities to distinguish fantasy
from reality—plus, there is the significant problem of Maharshi’s
documented caste bigotry. Further, the Dalai Lama these days is func-
tioning more as a mere moral guide than as a guru or “savior of hu-
mankind.” That, however, is a good thing, as his reported behavior in
the Karmapa Lama controversy has been consistently less than inspir-
ing. Likewise with his reported attitude when faced with allegations
of sexual exploitation against Sogyal Rinpoche, best-selling author of
the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying:
“The Dalai Lama has known about this for years and done
nothing. There is a real code of secrecy and silence,” said [Vic-
toria] Barlow (Lattin, 1994).
Interestingly, contemporary disaffected disciples of Yogananda,

in spite of their own disillusion, have yet proposed that no one should
be informed about the behind-the-scenes issues with SRF until they
have been involved with the organization for at least a decade. By that
point, it is believed, they may have begun to lose some of their initial
idealism on their own, being then more willing to listen to the possi-
bility that the guru and his organization are less than perfect. For my
own part, however, I disagree completely with that approach. After
all, many of the most committed students of any spiritual path will
undertake a long-term, residential stay within their first ten years or

so. And it is exactly in that context where the real damage is done. I
speak from experience on all of those points.
Further, ten years might as well be a hundred if one is only hav-
ing contact with such a community from “outside,” via books, printed
lessons, or mere casual and occasional contact. For, all of those have
been carefully edited to ensure that nothing uncomplimentary about
the organization is ever revealed through them. (Compare simply at-
tending Mass as a lay Catholic, versus being imprisoned in the or-
ganization as a sodomized altar boy or a monastic. Indeed, if we have
learned one thing from Bette Midler, it is that “from a distance there
is harmony” ... even if, up close, the situation is very different.)
One may well not be willing to consider the possibility that any
of the reported “dirt” on one’s favorite organization could be true dur-
ing one’s initial “honeymoon” period with it. To suggest, however,
that having that dirt swept under the rug is preferable to at least being
made aware of it, and thus being in a position to make relatively in-
formed decisions about one’s future there, strikes me as ridiculous.
When dealing with our world’s religious/spiritual organizations in the
long term, such ignorance is not bliss, nor is it a path to anything but
pain.
As Bailey and Bailey (2003) put it, when discussing the concerns
increasingly surrounding Sai Baba:
This is an opportunity to become aware of [the reported prob-

lems], thus moving into a position enabling informed choice,
rather than one coming from ignorance.
Lacking the information on which to base such an informed de-

cision leads to a very predictable end, which another former disciple
of Sai Baba suitably noted:
The intense desire I have to expose him now is directly propor-

tionate to the amount of devotion I gave him (in Brown, 2000).
***
Of course, one would not expect to publicize even such relatively

lukewarm negative information as all this without causing offense
among the “believers.” At the very least, as others who have spoken
out against the ungodly aspects of their respective paths have discov-
ered, one would have one’s motives (in profit, fame, bias, sensational-
ism, etc.) in doing so questioned. (Even established newspapers
which dared to speak out against Catholic clergy abuse in the mid-
’80s were accused of “yellow journalism” by less-courageous com-
petitors who could not believe that the stories were true [Berry, 1992].
But as we all know by now, the horrific stories there are, too often,
indeed sadly true.) Not surprisingly, then, reactions to elements of the
above mild exposé of Hidden Valley have included my being called a
“whinner” (sic)—by someone who evidently confuses thorough atten-
tion to detail (e.g., in spelling) with whining—and a “cowered” (sic).
Speaking out against what one has found to be wrong with our
world’s spiritual environments may be a lot of things, but it is not the
product of cowardice, as anyone who has ever been driven by con-
science and anguish to do it knows well. That is so particularly when
the objections to the “teaching” are raised with one’s name being at-
tached to them, as opposed to being posted anonymously for (justi-
fied) fear of retribution. The real cowardice in those situations rather
comes from the remaining loyal members of the organization who
attempt, anonymously, to intimidate disaffected followers into re-
maining silent.
And, one need not have suffered every possible mistreatment at
the hands of one or another divinely inspired fool or “vehicle of God”
to have suffered enough that one is more than justified in speaking
out against it, both for one’s own healing and to warn others.
So “kill the messenger” for all of this, if you must. For, we all
have profound, if merely implicit, emotional involvements in having
our professional ideas be correct, in maintaining our own self-images,
and in preserving our dearest human relationships. None of those
cherished investments, however, can compare with the value placed
on one’s religion and salvation/enlightenment, for anyone deeply
committed to those. Conversely, the discomfort felt in the potential
loss of any secular perk would surely be minor compared to the panic
induced when one’s salvation is threatened. The one who would deign
to thus “threaten” should then clearly be prepared, with no few deep
breaths, to be more hated than loved for his efforts.
In applying that principle to the present author, though, realize
that (i) every alleged abuse and ludicrous “divine” claim covered
herein, with the sole exception of my own experiences at Hidden Val-

ley, had already been put into print elsewhere; and (ii) I myself have
lost my religion through doing this thorough research. That is, when I
began this writing, in late 2003, I still believed that Yogananda was
all that he claimed to be, and that it was just his followers who had
subsequently messed up his organization. Indeed, I still accepted, at
that point, that the “enlightenment” attained to by himself and by the
likes of Ken Wilber and Ramakrishna, etc., was a goal worth pursu-
ing.
Sadly, I now know much better.
To state another obvious point: When we have, by the monks’
own admission, many individuals arriving at Hidden Valley (and else-
where) believing that every monk there is a “perfected being,” then
every imperfection in those “holy” individuals immediately becomes
relevant and worth documenting. To be categorized as a “whinner” or
a “cowered” for that is a small price to pay for showing that these
people are not what they seem (and happily role-play) to be.
Reactions to my documentation of the shortcomings within Self-
Realization Fellowship have also included the unsolicited suggestion
that if I was “uncomfortable” answering questions about my sexual
orientation, then I should just not have entered the ashram in the first
place. The clear implication there, of course, coming from an openly
backward SRF member who was explicitly opposed even to having
gays in the military, was again that only a person with “something to
hide” would consider the organization’s “do ask, do tell” policy to be
worth mentioning.
That still, however, pales in comparison with what an SRF
monk, giving tours of the Mother Center, said to me in the late ’80s,
when I was in Los Angeles to receive kriya initiation. For some rea-
son the topic of AIDS came up. The voiced opinion on the part of that
monk, then, was to the effect that perhaps that scourge was God’s and
Nature’s way of cutting down on sexual promiscuity, and thereby of
creating a “holier” world. Yikes. Yet, that attitude is not unique in the
spiritual world. For while at Hidden Valley and glancing through a
respected yogic magazine, I saw comparably “compassionate” ration-
alizations expressed there regarding the same illness.
More recently, I received several hundred copies of the follow-
ing abusive rant, in an attempted “mailbombing” sent first from
HiddenValleyLover@FirstReaction.com, and then from fabricated/
spoofed web-based email addresses, by one particularly defective,

relatively illiterate, obvious member in good standing of SRF:
I’ve been seriously itched by your gossipy statements about

Hidden Valley I’ve spend [sic] more than 3 years there and it’s
been the best time of my life so far!You’re [sic] an ungrateful
piece of shit, highly unethical and disturbed.And [sic] for your
info I’ve been in SRF 2 times as long as you.
If you want to be able to keep using your email adress,remove

[sic] the worthless crap about SRF and Hidden Valley(all of it)
[sic] from your excuse for a website.
Can’t ya just “feel the guru’s love”?

Or, “What Would Yogananda Do”?
Of course, the above threats could have come from any of the
spiritual communities in this world, to anyone who had left the soci-
ety and then spoken too accurately of the people or the beloved “God-
realized guru” there. Such responses are, indeed, “a dime a dozen,”
coming from devoted members of organizations which have every
reason to fear the details of their alleged behaviors getting out. And
so, for them, reality becomes something “from the devil.”
Being on the receiving end of the above name-calling does, how-
ever, at least bring to mind a comment from the late Canadian prime
minister, Pierre Trudeau: “I’ve been called worse things by better
people.” On the brighter side, persons who have themselves lived for
extended periods on the inside at Hidden Valley, and become as disil-
lusioned as I have with that environment, have corroborated my de-
piction of life there as being fully accurate.
Further, as far as “gossip” goes: These disclosures regarding
Hidden Valley are not trivial, idle talk; and they are given first-hand,
not via rumor. By contrast, the respected monk who quietly informed
me of the alleged Tara/da Vinci reincarnation put his own position
this way: “Don’t tell anyone ... or at least don’t say that it was me
who told you.”
“Here’s a secret everyone would like to know—but don’t tell
anyone. But if you do tell anyone, don’t tell them I told you.”
And I’m the gossip?!
Finally, the present author was a lot less “ungrateful,” and cer-
tainly a lot less “disturbed,” before those nine months of being hurled
on peristaltic waves of chronic negativity, real, trivial gossip, and
independence-robbing, ignorant pseudo-teachings in the bowels of
yogic hell. If I could do it over again, I would, in all deadly serious-
ness, rather live on the street. Conversely, that experience has at least
rid me of a great deal of fear: whatever else may come in life, I’ve
already been through worse. (A less positive way of stating that, how-
ever, is simply: “There is no one freer than someone who has nothing
left to lose.”)
But you need not even believe me in any of this. For, other per-
sons who have had comparably disillusioning experiences with SRF
have posted their stories, with much additional “dirt” and allegations
of disturbing meanness, homophobia and highly questionable actions
on the part of the leaders there, on the SRF Walrus (2004) website.
Many of those stories are much more damning than my own first-
hand experiences, even if giving less complete portraits of what daily
life within the Hidden Valley ashram is like for anyone who hasn’t
checked his brain and independence at the door.
So: Yogananda was the “Smut Merchant of Venice.” And he in-
troduced the act of beheading to England and he cut off people’s
hands and feet for vengeance and he beat and killed his wife in his
“conquering” incarnation. And Tara Mata was the gay da Vinci, and
Dr. Lewis was the equally ass-happy Francis Bacon.
Happy now, SRF? Because those problems are simply what hap-
pens when the long-documented, inarguable facts, which anyone
could have researched, meet head-on with what a bunch of aged fools,
closing their eyes to reality, just pleasantly imagine to be true.
***
Prior to my Hidden Valley sojourn, I had worked for a year for a

nonprofit, community-owned, politically correct organic food store.
There, the Board of Directors effectively had a position reserved for a
“competent idealist with business sense,” who would invariably re-
sign in disgust within a year, in response to resistance from other
power-enjoying board members to doing things intelligently.
Following the “bad trip” at HV in California, I toiled menially
for a month at the headquarters of the Canadian branch of Unicef.
There, one former, disenchanted donor sent in a newspaper clipping

reporting the inadequate auditing of a large amount of “missing and
poorly spent money” which the Unicef executives had allegedly
touched. (Compare the U.S. Red Cross earmarking monies collected
immediately after 9/11 for “other projects.” That behavior followed
the delays of their Canadian branch in implementing proper AIDS/
hepatitis testing in blood donations, in the mid-’80s. The latter short-
comings, in turn, led to their own role in the ensuing front-page
“tainted blood scandal.”)
In that same (Unicef) charity, as numerous donors discovered the
hard way, requesting to have one’s name taken off their periodic
mailing list had about as much effect as idly wishing for an end to
world hunger on a balmy summer’s afternoon, lemonade in hand. In-
deed, some of those former donors expressed their disgust with that
repeated waste of paper and postage by sending Unicef their junk
mail, or other irrelevant materials, in the donation envelopes!
When I left that temp job, the organization was on the verge of
moving into a new headquarters in the most expensive rental area of
the most expensive city in the country. In response to questions from
employees at that time, the move was justified by the management
there as being appropriate so as to more appeal to their large donors—
as opposed to the trusting “little old lady” contributors, who would in
turn express their heart-rending regrets that they couldn’t send any/
more money because of their own failing health and/or poverty.
I have it on good authority (unrelated to Hidden Valley) that the
Peace Corps is no better than any of those, in terms of efficiency.
The nonprofit Habitat for Humanity? Their founder and presi-
dent was fired in early 2005 amid allegations of sexual harassment.
That dismissal further reportedly occurred against the efforts of
Jimmy Carter himself to broker a deal to keep the scandal quiet
(Cooperman, 2005).
The Boy Scouts? They are currently being investigated by the
FBI for having allegedly inflated their membership numbers, to boost
their funding from the United Way (Reeves, 2005).
And the respected United Way itself? Well, in the early 1990s,
that charitable organization “became embroiled in a highly publicized
exposé of its own financial misdeeds” (Sennott, 1992).
After all that, I can honestly say that I have far less ideals intact
by now than I used to. Yet amazingly, no matter how bad one allows
or expects for things to be in the spiritual and secular world, they in-
variably turn out, upon proper research, to be much worse.
Guess I’m just not cynical enough yet.
One does not ask for perfection in any organization—spiritual,
humanitarian or otherwise—knowing that it is run by imperfect hu-
man beings. One simply asks for minimal competence, basic integ-
rity/ethical behavior, accountability, and the ability to admit when
they are wrong, to be able to correct their course.
One might as well ask for the moon.
Well, you live and learn.
Or, as the late Douglas Adams would say, “At least you live.”
CHAPTER XXVII
GURUS AND
PRISONERS
AS WE HAVE SEEN, a common set of alleged problems, even ex-

pressed in nearly identical words, tend to occur in our world’s spiri-
tual communities. Indeed, the reported characteristics observed are
essentially independent of the specific beliefs espoused by the com-
munity, and of the historical time and place in which the spiritual
leader and his disciples have existed.
Why would that be?
A large part of the answer surely comes from well-known re-
search done at Stanford University in the early 1970s. There, Dr.
Philip Zimbardo—later, president of the American Psychological As-
sociation—was able to inadvertently transform a group of “healthy,
intelligent, middle-class” college-age individuals into “fearful, de-
pressed, neurotic, suicidal shadows” in less than a week. He did that
simply by arbitrarily assigning them (via the flip of a coin) to guard/
prisoner roles in a simulated prison environment which they all knew
was just an experiment.
The dozen guards were given no specific training, but were
rather allowed, within limits, to create their own rules to “maintain
law and order” within the prison, and to “command the respect of the
prisoners” (Zimbardo, 2004; italics added).
Each of the dozen prisoners had been assigned a number in place
of his name upon entering, and was referred to only by that number,
in a tactic designed to make him feel anonymous and to dissociate
379
him from his pre-incarceration identity. That is, he was not to have
that past as a guide for how to behave, or as a reference for what
would be appropriate treatment of himself, for instance.
Monks and sannyasis are, of course, frequently subjected to a
similar change of name. In Rajneesh’s ashrams, as an extreme exam-
ple, that was often effected within mere days (or less) of the individ-
ual’s acceptance of Bhagwan as a teacher, even for persons not enter-
ing into long-term residence there. (Uniforms—e.g., of Rajneesh’s
saffron-wearing “orange” followers—have the same effect of “dein-
dividuation” on their wearers.)
Living among strangers who do not know your name or history

... dressed in a uniform exactly like all other prisoners [or
monks], not wanting to call attention to one’s self because of
the unpredictable consequences it might provoke [with those
being given as “discipline for one’s ego,” in the ashram]—all
led to a weakening of self-identity among the prisoners
(Haney, et al., 1973).
Following a brief rebellion on the second day of the Stanford in-

carceration, solidarity among the prisoners was broken. That was
done via the psychological tactic of designating a “privileged cell” for
“good prisoners,” whose inhabitants could exercise freedoms which
were not given to the inmates of the other cells.
Comparable residence in privileged rooms/houses, or increased
access to the guru-figure, is often given in ashrams to disciples who
are the most loyal in following the rules set down by their guru and
other superiors. Indeed, Milne (1986), Tarlo (1997) and van der Braak
(2003) have all described exactly that dynamic, alleged to occur under
Rajneesh and the pale, yuppie imitation of a guru, Andy Cohen.
Comparable promotions and demotions have also been reported in
Adi Da’s community. In SRF, by comparison, residence in the “pow-
er center” of Mount Washington is valued over “banishment” to their
ancillary temples in Hollywood, Hidden Valley, or India.
In attempting to break the will of their prisoners, Zimbardo’s
guards resorted to the non-violent humiliation of them.
In any ashram, the comparable humiliation is done with the
stated intention of killing the residents’ “unspiritual” egos. In prac-
GURUS AND PRISONERS 381
tice, however, it kills their closely related individual wills (i.e., their
self-esteem and independence) as well.
After a few days, “parole hearings” were held in the simulated
prison. There, prisoners were given the option of being released in
return for their forfeiting of the money they had earned. Most of them
agreed to that deal ... but then returned to their cells while the parole
board considered their requests. That behavior came in spite of the
fact that, by simply quitting the experiment, they could have gotten
exactly the same financial result.
Why would they have behaved so? In Zimbardo’s (2004) expla-
nation, it was because “they felt powerless to resist,” being trapped in
a “psychological prison” which they could not leave without the ap-
proval of the relevant authorities there.
When a disciple attempts to leave an ashram after a long-term
stay, or to sever ties with a “divinely guided guru,” it is often only
after having played the disciple/prisoner role for many years. Psycho-
logically, then, having bought deeply into that role, he cannot leave
without the permission or blessing of the guru. The latter is then
equivalent to the superintendent and parole board, holding the keys to
“salvation” or release from the prison (of the ashram, and of maya or
delusion.)
To thus depart, further, is typically equated with “falling from
the spiritual path.” To leave, therefore, is to weakly sell out the rea-
sons why one entered the ashram in the first place. That is, it is to fail
at one’s own enlightenment, the “only thing that really matters.” Or
worse:
I am just temporarily in the throes of my ego, they say, and I

shouldn’t throw away my one chance in this lifetime for en-
lightenment (van der Braak, 2003).
Eckists [i.e., followers of the Eckankar religion] are warned

that when they drop out their spiritual growth stops, and they
are at the mercy of the Kal, or the negative force of the uni-
verse (Bellamy, 1995).
[P]otential devotees make a binding vow of eternal devotion to

Adi Da—before actually being allowed to be in [his] pres-
ence.... [Adi Da’s followers] claim that breaking the vow will
result in far more than seven lifetimes of bad luck (in Bob,
2000).
We’d been told if you leave Poolesville and Jetsunma, you go

to Vajra hell.... You are crushed and burned and chopped up
over and over again, it repeats. You are there for eternity (in
Sherrill, 2000).
The Buddhist hell sounds as vicious as the Christian version—

with torture by molten iron, fire and disembowelment (Mac-
donald, 2003).
It is rather shocking to thus discover that Tibetan Buddhism, for

one, has fear-based means of keeping its disciples loyally following
their gurus, which are every bit as harsh as the Bible Belt visions of
hell.
Consider, further, that the Christian view of eternal punishment
has long been viewed by psychologists as leading to a rigidity in
thought and behavior on the part of the relevant believers. It has also
been seen as producing a “missionary zeal,” whereby persons con-
cerned about their own salvation would project those fears onto oth-
ers, and need to convert them in order to allay their own doubts. If
that long-asserted dynamic is valid for the Christian view, however, it
must apply just as well to the Buddhist perspective. That is, it must
produce related behaviors, with “loyalty to the guru” substituted for
“faith in Jesus Christ,” and a pressure on one’s fellow disciples to
maintain their own rigid obedience to the master then standing in for
the Christian attempt to convert “heathens.”
Conversely, if Christian blind belief can create an Inquisition, so
too equally could the standard Buddhist (“Tibetan Catholic”) teach-
ings. For there, the breaking of the savior-disciple bond, as with other
“sins,” generates punishments to delight the Marquis de Sade.
Thus, the state of mind apparently evinced by the lama in charge
of the Karmapa’s seat in Tibet, in explaining to Lama Ole Nydahl
what the purported effects of his (Nydahl’s) breaking of the guru-
disciple vow would be, becomes both understandable and completely
predictable:
Although by title a Buddhist teacher, the venerable Drubpoen

Dechen sounded as though he had come straight out of the
Catholic middle ages. He would have also probably felt quite

at home with the Holy Inquisition, since his letter, in spirit and
context, seemed to have been the product of this notable insti-
tution (Lehnert, 1998).
Similarly, from its beginnings, the giving of money and food to

begging Buddhist monks, like the indulgence scams of the Roman
Catholic Church, was a way for wealthy patrons to “purchase” merit,
redeemable for their own future good (Downing, 2001).
Of course, as always, one could avoid many of the problems
arising from such teachings simply by not believing too much of what
one has been told in the first place:
A man, worried about the gruesome Tibetan Buddhist teach-

ings of the hell realms, wants to know what Tenzin Palmo
thinks happens after death....
[Palmo:] “I once tackled a lama about it as by his defini-
tion I was definitely going there [i.e., to hell]. ‘Don’t worry
about it,’ he laughed while slapping me on the back. ‘We only
say that to get people to behave themselves’” (Mackenzie,
1999).
The fact that Buddhism includes “proof-delivering meditation”

in its path is actually irrelevant in all of this. For, that in no way off-
sets the blind belief inherent in the claimed necessity of keeping the
guru-disciple vow, where the punishment for breaking that vow is to
be cast into Vajra hell or the like. East or West, southern U.S. or
northern India/Tibet, agrarian or postindustrial, all makes absolutely
no difference. Rather, the fear of long-term punishment will produce
exactly the same rigid reactions, and inability to walk away from
toxic situations, in the East as in the West. The universal nature of
known psychological structures and dynamics throughout the human
species guarantees this.
When [alleged] cult leaders tell the public, “Members are free
to leave any time they want; the door is open,” they give the
impression that members have free will and are simply choos-
ing to stay. Actually, members may not have a real choice, be-
cause they have been indoctrinated to have a phobia of the out-
side world. Induced phobias eliminate the psychological possi-
bility of a person choosing to leave the group merely because

he is unhappy or wants to do something else (Hassan, 1990).
That is, individuals in so-called cults who have been taught that
bad things will happen to them should they leave will be no more
“free” to exit those environments than someone who is petrified of the
water would be “free” to go swimming.
Father [i.e., Jim Jones] kept my treasonous thoughts in check

by warning us that leaving the church would bring bad karma.
He reminded us in his sermons that those who had chosen to
join were here because we were on the verge of crossing over
to the next plane. Without his help, we would not make it.
Those who left or betrayed the Cause in any way would be re-
incarnated as the lowest life form on Earth and it would take us
another hundred thousand years to get to this point again (Lay-
ton, 1998).
And that differs from Trungpa’s traditional “pursuing disasters/

furies” how, exactly? Conceptually, and in terms of its effect, it dif-
fers not at all.
Further regarding leaving: When one of the subjects (#819) in
Zimbardo’s study was labeled as a “bad prisoner” by his fellow in-
mates, he broke down into hysterical tears and was then removed
from his cell. When Zimbardo suggested that they leave the experi-
mental area, however, the subject refused, explicitly preferring to re-
turn to the prison, in spite of feeling sick, to prove to his compatriots
that he was not the bad prisoner they accused him of being.
Disciples stay in ashrams, in part, exactly for feeling the same
need to prove that they are not being bad or disloyal to the guru-figure
and his inner circle of “spiritually advanced” beings. No one wants to
be a “bad disciple,” after all, when “the guru is God.”
***
An incident from Ken Wilber’s life may serve to further drive home
the aforementioned difficulty of leaving psychological “prisons.”
Wilber’s second wife, Treya, suffered her first bout with breast
cancer in the mid-1980s. During and following that period, their un-
spoken resentments toward each other, deriving from that stress,
caused their relationship, and Wilber’s own life in general, to deterio-

rate to the point where he was consuming alcohol to the tune of over
twenty drinks a day, every day. He was further doing little else but
lethargically watching television; and feeling depressed, not caring
whether or not he ever wrote another book. At the lowest point of that
spite, he actually went out gun-shopping, intending to end his own
life (Wilber, 1991).
Rationally, however, Wilber could have walked away from that
situation at any time. All that he ever had to do was to get into his car
and drive, and never look back. He had his book royalties, his high
reputation in transpersonal psychology—starting over without his
wife would, rationally, have been so easy. In the absolute worst fall-
out from that, after all, he would have owed her half of their house
and half of his book royalties, in a divorce settlement, getting his own
life back in return.
To his mindset at that time, however, there was obviously simply
“no way out” for him from his misery. Rather, suicide evidently
looked “easier” to him than either attempting to fix the problem or
simply walking away from that prison, from which there was appar-
ently “no escape.”
By comparison, disciples more often than not “fall in love” with
guru-figures who, in the long run, do nothing but make their lives
miserable. The one-sided attempts to untangle the ingrown emotional
codependencies as the relationship crashes, then, place even greater
constraints on the doubting disciple than for any secular, romantic
relationship. Thus, it is in no way easy there to “just leave.” Indeed,
such abandonment would again be equated not merely with “falling
out of love”—a plight for which there is an easy remedy. Rather, one
must deal with the guilt of feeling disloyal to the god-man guru, and
with the fallout from “leaving the spiritual path”—perhaps for incar-
nations.
Most [so-called] cult members feel depressed during the first

few months of post-cult life. Some compare the experience to
falling head-over-heels in love, only to realize that their lover
was two-faced and just using them. Others liken their in-
volvement to a spiritual rape of their soul (Hassan, 2000).
Losing one’s [alleged] cult is like losing the love of one’s life.
The lover has lied to you, but the lover is oh so seductive and
satisfying, and submission is so thrilling (in Bellamy, 1995).
Belief in a guru, while it persists, entirely overrules rational

judgment. Dedicated disciples are as impervious to reason as
are infatuated lovers....
[T]he person who becomes a disciple “falls for” a particu-
lar guru without being able to distinguish between dross and
gold. The process is equivalent to falling in love, or to the oc-
currence of “transference” in psychotherapy. None of us is im-
mune to such phenomena (Storr, 1996; italics added).
I never questioned Bhagwan’s insistence on surrender. One

surrenders to a lover joyously, willingly. It’s only when the
love affair ends that you notice the paunchy jowls and sagging
muscles, the cruelties and indifference, and suspicion creeps in
(Franklin, 1992).
Seen from a certain perspective, my time with Andrew

[Cohen] was a botched love affair (van der Braak, 2003).
It may be difficult to walk away from a romantic partner who

was once “the center of your life,” on whom you could rely even
when you had nowhere else to turn. Imagine, then, how much harder
it would be to walk away from a “god,” regardless of how much that
figure may be causing you anguish on a daily basis.
I can’t describe the depth of pain I experienced in considering

the possibility that the one I had loved absolutely might be less
than what a God ought to be (Underwood and Underwood,
1979).
Not surprisingly, then, given all that, numerous former monks

have admitted to feeling depressed and suicidal within their ashram/
prison cells.
Wilber did later leave for San Francisco, “with or without” his
wife, but only after having regretfully hit her in response to an argu-
ment they were having. Disciples who have finally, after much soul-
searching, walked out of an ashram to end a promised life-long stay,
could frequently point to a similar “can’t get any worse” incident,

which finally brought them to their senses, and made them realize that
simply leaving was a preferable option to suicide.
***
Even among lower animals, lacking obeisance to a purported deity-in-

the-flesh, the inability to take the simple steps which would lessen
their own pain, in exiting from a harmful environment, has long been
known. That knowledge has come in large part via Martin Seligman’s
experiments in the mid-’70s, in which animals were given electric
shocks in an environment where they could not escape that mistreat-
ment.
At first the animals fought, tried to get away, and uttered cries
of pain or anger. Then they sank into listlessness and despair.
Later on, in a second set of experiments, the same animals
were shocked again—only this time, by pressing a certain
lever or completing some other simple task, they could stop the
electric current. But they made no effort to do so.
The animals had learned to be helpless. Due to their pre-
vious experiences, even when a means of escape from the pain
was provided, these animals were too defeated, perhaps de-
feated neurologically, to take the simple action that would end
their suffering (Matsakis, 1996).
Being reportedly forcibly stripped in public against one’s pleas

to stop, or coerced into often-violent individual or group sex (with or
without a “church’s dildo collection”), or into psychologically inces-
tuous sex with the guru-figure, would obviously qualify as shocks or
trauma by any reasonable definition. So too would Rajneesh’s violent
humanistic encounter groups, even for people who knew going in that
they might suffer broken bones or be raped.
To a more chronic degree, though, much of the emotional vio-
lence and psychological abuse reportedly perpetrated in the name of
“ego-killing discipline,” as a betrayal of trust and widely recognized
“spiritual rape,” would also qualify as trauma. Indeed, Tarlo’s (1997)
and van der Braak’s (2003) stories of alleged discipline at Cohen’s
hands are nothing if not descriptions of repeated emotional trauma/
shocks, humiliation and degradation. Further, those occurred in an
“intimate or bonded relationship” with the guru-figure, which they

could not escape without being “bad disciples” or “failures.” And
wherever there is such inescapable trauma, one will find instances of
both “learned helplessness” and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Thus, “crazy wisdom” or “Rude Boy” environments in particular
cannot help but be breeding grounds for exactly those ailments.
Psych 101.
Further, working efficiently at one’s assigned ashram tasks, and
taking initiative to coordinate others’ activities with that, will alter-
nately get one highly praised for serving “the Guru’s work” well, and
then severely criticized for overstepping one’s bounds and having “a
big head.” Such an environment—in the tension between serving the
guru-figure efficiently, but not “too efficiently/egoically”—is at least
halfway to being rife with psychological double binds. For there, one
cannot know in advance how to gain the approval of one’s guru-
figure and other “superiors”—when, as every sad dog knows, secur-
ing the approval of the master is all that matters.
Should there be craftsmen in the monastery, let them exercise

their crafts with all humility and reverence, if the Abbot so
command. But if one of them grow proud because of the
knowledge of his craft, in that he seem to confer some benefit
on the monastery, let such a one be taken away from this craft
and not practice it again, unless perchance, after he has hum-
bled himself, the Abbot may bid him resume it (Saint Bene-
dict, in [Goffman, 1961]).
Or, as Janja Lalich (2004) described her own experiences in a

“political cult”:
Militants were expected to “take initiative,” within the bounds

of discipline; yet the reality of their everyday lives gave them
very little of consequence to make decisions about. Eventually,
a militant who thought she was taking initiative would be
“reined in” and criticized for “careerism,” “grandstanding,”
“factionalizing,” or a variety of other charges that served to sti-
fle further efforts at independent action and to set an example
for others.
Thus, one is reduced to simply guessing which course of action

one should take, without knowing whether it will garner exultant
praise or harsh blame. (Failing to take sufficient initiative would be
no escape from that, rather placing one in exactly the same position.
That is, for a given set of moderate actions, one might be praised for
“knowing one’s place” ... or harshly upbraided for not doing one’s
job.) One possible extreme reaction to such long-term binds is again
violent neurosis, from “trying too hard.” The other is severe depres-
sion—a “learned helplessness” in which, since one cannot predict the
results of one’s actions or find a reliable way to succeed or to win
approval, one simply stops trying at all. Thus, one moves about pur-
poselessly and only in response to others’ explicit orders (cf. Haney,
et al., 1973).
***
It is indeed the most independent disciples who are the most likely to
leave any ashram, as the SRF postulant ashram administrator noted.
For, they will be the quickest to figure out that they need to get the
hell out of there, for their own mental and physical health. The inde-
pendent ones and those with integrity (guided by some clarity of
sight, as opposed to the “idiot integrity” we have previously seen) are
thus always “evaporating off.” Consequently, the concentration of
pathology or pollution in the environment will only increase as time
goes by. And the long-term dependent/obedient prisoners then get
promoted to guard (or inner-circle disciple) status, demanding obedi-
ence and respect from all those below them.
Some individuals are indeed able to leave any such closed envi-
ronment, via independence and/or outside contact, in spite of the fact
that neither of those are ever encouraged in our world’s ashrams.
That, however, again does not in any way mean that the ones who
stay have the same choice, and might simply be making a different,
equally rational decision.
Ram Dass himself, interestingly,
compared his own experience [with Joya] to what invariably

occurs in [so-called] cults. “Once you are in them, they pro-
vide a total reality which has no escape clause,” he wrote
(Schwartz, 1996).
Any reality with “no escape clause” would obviously not be an

easy one to simply walk away from.
I can’t express the amount of relief I feel about being rescued

by my parents [from the Moonies]. I know I could never have
left on my own. It’s hard for anybody outside of the experience
to understand the depth of that (Underwood and Underwood,
Recall, further, the dangerous idea that as long as people entering

a “crazy wisdom” environment know what they are getting them-
selves into, that path may still work to the benefit of the disciples,
rather than acting to destroy them. All of the participants in Zim-
bardo’s study, however, believed that they knew exactly what they
were getting themselves involved with. Indeed, they signed consent
forms which are today posted online, after having been fully informed
as to the nature of the study (Zimbardo, 2004). Further, as prisoners,
they explicitly expected to have little or no privacy, to be kept under
surveillance, and to have their civil rights violated (Haney, et al.,
1973).
Nevertheless, that knowledge did not help those peons when
faced with their bored and respect-extracting guards. Nor did it make
it any easier for them to “just leave” that environment, or even to
simply object to the treatment they were receiving from their author-
ity figures:
In only a few days, [one-third of] our guards became sadistic

and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of ex-
treme stress (Zimbardo, 2004).
Tarlo (1997) described similar behaviors, which she claims to

have seen within Cohen’s community:
There was an inappropriate sadistic flavor to these [verbal] at-

tacks on Sarah [as the house scapegoat].
Likewise, in Rajneesh’s ashrams:
[S]omehow the ego bashing [as instructed by Bhagwan’s

“guard” Sheela, who made no recorded claims to enlighten-
ment] seemed to be getting more severe, almost sadistic (Ham-

ilton, 1998).
Consider also the reported mistreatment of children in Irish

Catholic institutional schools, being frequently harshly beaten “for
everything and for nothing,” without even knowing why they were
being hit so mercilessly:
Survivors describe a wide range of weapons used to beat them

on all parts of their bodies—whips, cat-o-nine-tails, leathers,
belts, straps, canes, sticks, tree branches, chair legs, hose pipes,
rubber tires and hurley sticks. Many of the leathers used had
been reinforced by having pieces of metal or lead sown into
them.... One former inmate remembers a [monastic] brother
who used to freeze his leather in order to make it harder and
consequently more painful.... Violence was an intrinsic part of
the culture of these institutions—its aim and often its effect
was the systematic and thorough destruction of the will of each
and every boy and girl (Raftery and O’Sullivan, 2001; italics
added).
A former male resident of St. Joseph’s Industrial School in Let-

terfrack, Ireland, later enlisted in the army and was captured by the
Germans in WWII. Yet, he observed that “compared to Letterfrack,
the German prisoner of war camp was like a tea party” (Raftery and
In the spiritual world, sadistic or “Rude Boy” mistreatment may
be daftly viewed as being a “good thing,” for supposedly acting to
“kill one’s ego.” But no one’s psychology ever changes magically
simply for having passed through the ashram gates. Thus, the long-
term negative effects of such reported cruelties are going to be exactly
the same in “spiritual” contexts as in the kinder “real world.”
***
Several days into Zimbardo’s study, a standby prisoner (#416) was

admitted to the prison, without having experienced the gradual escala-
tion of harassment which the other inmates had.
Following #416’s attempts to force his own release, via a hunger
strike, from what the “old-timers” assured him was an inescapable
“real prison,” he was thrown into solitary confinement. Through all

that, he was seen not as a hero but rather as a troublemaker by the
existing, veteran prisoners. Indeed, they preferred to leave him in soli-
tary confinement rather than give up their blankets to secure his re-
lease from that punishment, in trade.
That treatment exactly parallels the ostracism and social punish-
ment which any independent or “disloyal” (i.e., troublemaking) disci-
ple who breaks the rules set by his superiors or guru-figure will face
in the ashram environment:
I’m living proof of why you better not speak out.... The degree
to which I was scapegoated publicly was most effective in
keeping everyone else quiet (Yvonne Rand, in [Downing,
2001]).
Conversely, a former novice—Patricia Burke Brogan, now a

celebrated playwright—in the Irish Catholic Sisters of Mercy noted of
her own experience in that congregation:
What defined you as a good nun [in a hierarchy of senior nuns

and novices] was that you obeyed the rules. There were the
three vows—poverty, chastity and obedience. But if you were
obedient, that covered everything (in Raftery and O’Sullivan,
2001).
A nun in the Franciscan (Catholic) Poor Clare order expressed a

comparable attitude (in Goffman, 1961):
This is another of the marvels of living in obedience. No one is

ever doing anything more important than you are, if you are
obeying.
Should you fail to obey, though, prepare to be punished, not

merely by your superiors but even by your peers:
If you ... did not obey the rules of the group [in the Moonies],
love and approval would be withdrawn (Hassan, 2000).
Or, consider the experiences of a female disciple of Chögyam

Trungpa’s, who once disobediently dumped a bottle of glue into the
guru’s hair, in anger.
She was subsequently ostracized by the Boulder Buddhist

community, beaten up by several women of the community,
and left to shift for herself and her out-of-wedlock child, she
claims (Clark, 1980).
When the same woman left the community, intending to con-

tinue practicing the master’s teachings, Trungpa fiercely told her:
“The lions will come to devour you.”
“I personally found that I was punished when I didn’t want to

go to bed with Trungpa after he asked me to,” she says. The
“punishment,” apparently, comes in the form of psychological
rejection (Clark, 1980).
“Concerned physicians.”
***
By the end of Zimbardo’s study, four of his twelve prisoners had ex-
perienced “extreme emotional depression, crying, rage and acute
anxiety,” to the point of needing to be removed from the study for
their own good. (Those breakdowns were later interpreted by the ex-
perimenters as being a “passive way of demanding attention and
help.” Still, they were certainly real to the persons experiencing them,
regardless of what the subconscious motivations might have been.) A
fifth developed a psychosomatic rash on portions of his body (Haney,
et al., 1973).
The prisoners who adapted better to the situation were those

who mindlessly followed orders and who allowed the guards to
dehumanize and degrade them ever more with each passing
day and night (Zimbardo, 2004b).
Compared with those who had to be released, prisoners who

remained in prison until the termination of the study ... scored
higher on conformity (“acceptance of society as it is”) (Haney,

et al., 1973).
On a psychological test designed to reveal a person’s authori-

tarianism, those prisoners who had the highest scores were best
able to function in this authoritarian prison environment (Zim-
bardo, et al., 1973).
Dr. Zimbardo further characterized the prisoners in general, by

the end of the experiment, as simply “hanging on ... much like hospi-
talized mental patients,” blindly obeying the commands of their
guards.
Loyal, beaten-down disciples, of course, “hang on” in much the
same way. And, as the SRF monk implicitly noted, the ones who stay
and adapt the best are, more often than not, exactly the ones who are
able to “mindlessly follow orders,” being free of the “delusive evil”
of independence. Further, as judged by their high authoritarianism
scores in Zimbardo’s study, those order-following ones are the very
same individuals who most enjoy sitting in authority over others. Put
another way: The ones who send the deepest bows to their own over-
lords (“divine” or otherwise) also typically crave and insist on the
most respect and obedience from others. Even without experimental
confirmation, one could easily have discerned that dynamic simply in
common sense from one’s daily observations of others. That, at least,
has been my own experience.
(Interestingly, like the “ashram gossip” which one cannot avoid
in such “God-centered” environments, the conversations of Zim-
bardo’s prisoners, too, centered a full 90% of the time on the short-
comings in their prison conditions, without reference to the outside
world [Haney, et al., 1973].)
It is equally clear that the prisoners in Zimbardo’s study were not
capable of giving “adult consent” to anything requested of them by
the guards or the superintendent—even though they were perfectly
normal, college-age individuals going into the study. That has pro-
found relevance to the idea of sexual relations between guru-figures
and their disciples. And that is so, even in addition to any context of
“spiritual incest” deriving from the disciples viewing their leader as a
“perfect father/mother figure,” as we shall see.
Ironically, there is a Hindu story about a lion who was raised

among sheep, and grew up to believe that he himself was a sheep—
bleating when he should have roared, etc. That behavior lasted until
one day when another lion grabbed him, pointed his face into the mir-
rored surface of a pond, and showed him that he was a mighty lion,
not a meek lamb.
The intended point of that story, of course, is that in our soul-
natures we are mighty lions, simply behaving as sheep in our earthly
lives. (Compare the other tale of the king who went out among his
people and forgot who he was, then living as a commoner until awak-
ened from that delusion.) A more poignant application, however,
would see that self-confident, relatively independent lions and lion-
esses become dependent sheep when surrounded by other guarding/
guru-ing “sheep in wolves’ clothing.”
As one final eerie observation regarding the Stanford role-
playing: Before the termination of the experiment, the rumor of an
impending breakout from the simulated prison had begun to circulate.
In response to that, rather than simply recording the transmission of
rumors and observing the escape, Zimbardo and his colleagues began
planning how to foil it. That is, Zimbardo, as he later admitted, had
begun to think and act like the prison superintendent role he was play-
ing, rather than as an impartial, witnessing social psychologist.
The prisoners in that study were initially rounded up by police,
de-loused when checking into the prison, and stripped of their prior
identities by being given numbers instead of names, etc., in order to
make their prison experience as “real” as possible. Likewise, the
acute rebellion on the second day will have made the guards’ experi-
ence more “real.” No such “mind games,” however, were played with
Zimbardo himself. Nor was he at any risk, compared to the guards, of
coming to physical harm from the prisoners. Yet his adopting of his
self-assigned “role” came just as quickly, and just as intensely.
How much explicit “mind control” or “brainwashing” is then
likely to be necessary, over a sufficiently long period of time, to get
the people in any context into their roles, and turn their environment
toxic? Probably none at all—though that is not at all to say that the
use of such techniques would not cause things to get worse, faster, for
it certainly would. (“Mind control” is regarded as being effected via
techniques which include “sleep deprivation, special diets, controlling
information going in and out, peer pressure, extensive indoctrination
sessions, such as long hours of chanting, meditating, listening to dron-

ing lectures and mild forms of trance induction that ... reduce the per-
son’s ability to think clearly” [Lalich, 1997].)
Interestingly, rock stars, too, have at times sought psychological
counseling to help them step out of their adopted, onstage personas,
when those seeped too far into their private lives.
Comparable to Zimbardo’s slipping into the superintendent role,
at one point several disciples of the superintendent-guru Rajneesh left
his Oregon ashram without warning. Rather than simply observing
that with enlightened “choiceless awareness,” however, Bhagwan’s
concern over additional “escapes” is said to have led him to tell his
disciples that if anyone else departed in the same manner, he would
leave his body permanently. That, of course, would have been the
worst thing that any of his devoted disciples could have imagined.
And no one wants to be the one who “killed God,” or to have to face
that guilt either from his own conscience or from the community.
Thus, the pressures mobilized by that warning, and the fact that fol-
lowers needed help in leaving the isolated area, ensured the “security”
of that “prison.” Indeed, according to Milne (1986), the threat imme-
diately staved off three more already planned “escapes.”
After all that, Alexander (2001) summed up the enduring legacy
of Zimbardo’s study:
What drives much of the fascination with the experiment is the

sense that any individual could become a brutal dictator if
given the chance....
“These guys were all peaceniks,” [Zimbardo] recalled of
the students chosen to be guards. “They became like Nazis”....
“It shows how easy it is for good people to become perpe-
trators of evil.”
Zimbardo’s website, at www.prisonexp.org, presents a fuller,

online photo/video documentary of that chilling experiment.
***
Temporary residents of psychiatric asylums have observed with dis-

comfort how easy it was for them to slip into enjoying having all of
their decisions made for him—as to when to eat, bathe, sleep, etc.
It would be naïve to think that a similar dynamic did not apply to

a significant proportion of our world’s ashram residents. For, they
equally have their practical decisions made by the rules of the com-
munity, and their moral and metaphysical ones made by the guru-
figure. With or without profound energy flows and transmitted bliss/
enlightenment, that abdication of independence would appeal to far
too many, and provides a very significant additional impediment in
attempting to return to the “real world.” For in the latter, one must
make one’s own choices, and be held responsible for the conse-
quences. In the former, by contrast, to yield one’s decisions to others
is taken as a sign of loyalty and spiritual growth in the loss of ego,
and is correspondingly socially rewarded.
Once you get the rules and the rituals straight, it’s easy. No de-
cisions, no choices, nothing to plan. It’s ever so much harder to
live on your own [than as a Zen monk] (Boehm, 1996).
Given that all daily needs were taken care of—food, clothing,
living arrangements—there were few decisions left for a mem-
ber [of Heaven’s Gate] to make (Lalich, 2004).
Persons can voluntarily elect to enter a total institution and

cease thereafter, to their regret, to be able to make ... important
decisions. In other cases, notably the religious, inmates may
begin with and sustain a willful desire to be stripped and
cleansed of personal will (Goffman, 1961).
Jetsunma’s telephone number was unlisted and kept private,

even from most of her students. “Otherwise, I’d get calls all
day,” she explained later, “people asking me which cereal to
buy” (Sherrill, 2000).
Of course, such crippling (co-)dependence is a two-way street:

Jetsunma, Cohen, Trungpa, and many others, have all reportedly con-
trolled the personal lives of their followers as well. That governance
has typically included the guru-figure setting up, and breaking up,
long-term relationships, and suggesting which couples should have
children, etc.
As a loyal disciple, one is taking the guru-figure’s claims of
enlightenment seriously, and regarding his/her teachings as being the
shortest route to the end of one’s own sorrows in bliss or some other
variation of enlightenment. What choice, then, does one have but to
follow such “God-given” advice, regardless of how obviously med-
dling and obsessively controlling it may be? What, other than “ego,”
would resist?
If “God” tells you to do something, you do it, right?
Such devoted following will further generally and “validly” (in
that context) lead to you immerse yourself in the guru-figure’s teach-
ings, to the natural exclusion of outside writings or news. In such a
scenario, you will probably equally willingly drop your relationships
with family and friends outside the ashram, if the resistance or lack of
understanding of those outsiders is felt to interfere with your spiritual
quest. Conversely, they will just as easily drop you, should your new
set of beliefs and activities be too “weird” for them to be comfortable
with.
“Call me,” [Pam] said. “I hate to see you fuck up your life in a
place like this.”
“You don’t want to be a Hare Krishna. Think about it,”
Diana added.
Pam sat there, the radio blaring louder than the ritual mu-
sic from the temple, and then she squealed out of the driveway
and roared off into the darkness of Watseka. I watched until
the taillights faded. I hoped my friends would come back
someday, but feared I’d lost them forever (Muster, 1997).
After making the decision to stay on at Kripalu, I had settled

comfortably into the rhythm of life on campus.... My friends
back home had their reactions, of course. Nina stopped talking
to me for a while (Cope, 2000).
Georg Feuerstein (1992) related his own comparable episodes in

entering, and later leaving, Adi Da’s ashram:
Old friends and colleagues had reacted to my decision to “drop

out” of the academic world with incomprehension, some even
with hostility. Similarly, my former fellow disciples quite
failed to understand why I had to leave [the ashram, five years
later]. Some even reacted angrily toward me, and a few still
harbor ill feelings.
If you questioned and decided to leave [the Moonies], you

would not be worthy of love—to the contrary, you would be
worthy of scorn and even hatred (Hassan, 2000).
Or, as Butterfield (1994) summarized the dynamic:
The hypocrisy of [so-called] cult friendships, typically, is that

while they pose as unconditional love, they depend powerfully
on loyalty to the [alleged] cult.
All of that follows straightforward from the simple conformist

principle of “fit in or be ostracized.” And that is applied just as much
by members of the heterogeneous society outside the ashram gates as
it is applied inside the homogeneously believing “cult.”
The push to conform was very strong in Heaven’s Gate but in

some ways not so different from the norms of conformity
found throughout U.S. society. The specifics of this confor-
mity—ideas, appearance, language, deference to Ti [Nettles]
and Do [Applewhite]—may seem odd to the outsider, but such
conformism is rampant everywhere, as citizens flock to buy
the latest fashion or hot product or kowtow to their bosses. It is
the very normalcy of that behavior that made it easy for Ti and
Do’s followers to go along with the program (Lalich, 2004).
***
It is just a question of degree or intensity, not a difference in kind,

that separates “safe” communities and societies from so-called de-
structive ones. That is true along a continuum ranging from high
school or the business world to the Marines to prison confinement to
Jonestown. For, any relatively closed, hierarchical system with an
emphasis on respectful obedience to the rules of enlightenment/
parole/graduation/promotion, and insufficient checks and balances
placed on the leaders to make them accountable to the followers and
to the outside world, is a “pathology waiting to happen,” regardless of
the genders or ages involved.
Significantly, then, in a 1975 Psychology Today article, Zim-
bardo and his colleague, Craig Haney, observed that, in many impor-
tant ways, “it’s tough to tell a high school from a prison”:
While we do not claim high schools are really prisons, the two
environments resemble each other to a remarkable and dis-
tressing degree.... Any social institution—a school, hospital,
factory, office—can fairly be labeled a prison if it seriously re-
stricts a person’s freedom, imprisoning him in regulated and
routinized modes of behavior or thought.
Zimbardo and Haney proceeded to sensibly map high school

teachers to guards, and students to prisoners. And had they directed
their attention to how religious communities are structured, they
would surely have found it worth their while to perform a comparable
mapping for those. They could further not have been at all surprised,
in hindsight at least, to find that exactly the same problems are re-
ported to occur in our world’s ashrams as manifest in our prisons, “in
spite of” the former having a “god in the flesh” as a “superintendent,”
and close disciples as “guards.”
Comparably, even with regard to the relatively safe business
world, an anonymous poster on the SRF Walrus website observed:
It was so awful, working in corporations. I was a computer

programmer, so I saw a lot of the inner workings at various
levels. The first shocking thing that happens is to be in on an
upper management meeting and see how blatantly anti-
employee they are, with no apologies. But I came to feel that
what was worse was the way the employees bought in to the
mistreatment. If you say anything to point out to them how
they’re being used and abused, you become the troublemaker
[cf. Zimbardo’s prisoner #416], the boat-rocker. They are des-
perate to believe the emperor has on the latest and best styl-
ings, and this drove me crazy.
That is, the psychological dynamics, as we could have guessed,

are no different from those which occur in so-called cults and prisons,
even if not approaching the Jonestown end along that continuum. (In
such “cult”/prison environments, inmates can again be sadistically
abused, with no regard for their rights, almost as if they were inferior
animals rather than equal human beings.) Here, we obviously have
executives substituted for guards, peon employees for prisoners, and
CEOs for superintendents. The structure into which those fit, how-
ever, is as hierarchical as in any prison or ashram. It further contains
persuasive (financial) reasons for the underlings to obey their superi-

ors, and equal reasons for them to not “just leave,” even when being
shat upon. So they instead remain, being “good employees,” not rock-
ing the boat, in the hope of receiving reward and recognition/pro-
motion for their obedience to the “much wiser” parent-figure manage-
rial leaders.
Interestingly, similar dynamics can apply even in the smallest of
“communities”:
The social convention of marriage ... becomes for many cou-

ples a state of imprisonment in which one partner agrees to be-
come prisoner or guard, forcing or allowing the other to play
the reciprocal role (Zimbardo, et al., 1973).
Focusing on “patriarchy” as opposed to “hierarchy” in any of

those systems, however, again only serves to obscure the relevant is-
sues of basic human psychology. It further typically leads to utterly
fallacious, frequently misandristic (as opposed to misogynistic) pro-
posed “solutions” to the reported problems we have seen herein.
***
Even a pure democracy will naturally and inevitably turn into an au-
thoritarian hierarchy in the face of any one person whom enough peo-
ple believe to be an infallible “god.” Those supporters then defer to
his (or her) “omniscient” perception of reality, and collectively en-
force that same deference on their peers, against the penalty of ostra-
cism from the community—a fate worse than peon-ship, even were
salvation not at stake. Thereby do they ingratiate themselves and se-
cure their own inner circle status, where they can “bask in the re-
flected glory” from such close proximity to the “cool sage” above
them. In the same positions, they will further receive bowing respect
from those below—exacted sadistically, if need be.
(With regard to the spontaneous production and defense of the
guru position: Compare the unavoidable—not necessarily good, but
unavoidable—presence of “alpha males” and pecking orders even in
the animal kingdom. There is neither “patriarchy” nor “too much lin-
ear thinking” in such pre-verbal environments; yet the hierarchical
orderings occur all the same.)
Spiritual paths as diverse as Roman Catholicism, Tibetan Bud-

dhism and Paramahansa Yogananda’s SRF have been grown in cul-
tures ranging from the agrarian East to postmodern America. Yet,
they are scarcely distinguishable in their power structures, the behav-
iors of their members, the penalties for leaving and the reported,
spirit-crushing cruelties visited upon those who stay. And given all
that, it seems clear by now that not only are the problems with such
communities systemic, but the abuse-creating structures are basically
unavoidable.
The issues we have seen, then, are the product far less of a few
“bad apples,” than of the surroundings in which they are contained.
Prisons [and other authoritarian institutions, e.g., ashrams],

where the balance of power is so unequal, tend to be brutal and
abusive places unless great effort is made to control the
guards’ base impulses, [Zimbardo] said. At Stanford and in
Iraq [e.g., Abu Ghraib], he added: “It’s not that we put bad ap-
ples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The
barrel corrupts anything that it touches” (J. Schwartz, 2004).
David Clohessy, the national director of S.N.A.P. (the Survivors

Network of those Abused by Priests), gave a similar analysis of the
Catholic Church, in its problems with clergy sexual abuse (in Bruni
and Burkett, 2002):
It’s not bad apples. It’s the structure of the barrel that the ap-
ples are in, and it’s the people who are in charge of the barrel,
and the people who fill up the barrel [i.e., the bishops, cardi-
nals and pope].
Almost universally, in spiritual communities, there are no mean-

ingful checks and balances on the behaviors of the leaders, to restrict
their exercise of “divine” power. That is so, not only in terms of their
indulgence in base (e.g., sadistic or sexual) impulses, but also in fail-
ing to prevent the Animal Farm-like rewriting of the tenets on which
the community was originally founded. (Compare SRF’s current mo-
nopoly on “valid” kriya initiation, etc.) Yet, there is simultaneously
no shortage of indoctrination, required deference, ostracism and
worse, utilized to keep the followers from even cognizing, much less
speaking up about, those power-grabs and rule-changes. And before
you know it, the Board of Directors members, for example, have be-
come “more equal” than the people they should be accountable to.
They will further benefit from there being no shortage of peons eager
to prove their loyalty to the cause, and work their way up “toward
God,” by doubly reinforcing that inequality on anyone who dares to
question it.
Profound deference in such spiritual communities will further
occur even if all below the “alpha sage” believe that they themselves
can eventually attain to his or her ostensibly exalted level of wisdom
or spiritual realization. For, no small part of the means toward attain-
ing that enlightened wisdom is to “temporarily” defer to its manifesta-
tion in the guru-figure. Conversely, to question “God’s” wisdom is to
suffer one form or another of damnation within the community, just
as to obey him unquestioningly is to secure one’s own salvation.
There is in the Indian tradition the notion that ... “criticizing

the guru” is a thing that the disciples must not tolerate; and
they don’t (Bharati, 1976; italics added).
Whatever you do should be done only to please the guru.

Without the guru, enlightenment is impossible (Butterfield,
1994).
You have to do everything your guru says. You must obey

(Neem Karoli Baba, in [Das, 1997]).
[Ramakrishna] once admonished an unsuspecting young man

who refused to wash the Master’s feet after the latter’s toilet:
“If I piss standing, you buggers have to do it dancing around.
You must do my bidding for your own good” (Sil, 1998).
In the relevant words of Upasani Baba (1978)—a disciple of the

original Shirdi Sai Baba—who was himself married, by ancient Vedic
custom, to a full twenty-five virgin girls:
[I]t is never the business of the devotee to doubt or interpret in

his own way whatever he is spoken to by the Satpurusha [God-
realized man]. He cannot understand the real purport of Sad-
guru’s [i.e., the true teacher’s] talk or action; because his rea-
soning and thought are never capable of fathoming Guru’s

thoughts or actions.
Or, as Adi Da (1974) conveniently explained to his own follow-

ers:
If you assume the Guru is less than [living always and con-
sciously in Divine Communion], if you assume what he says is
less than Truth, that he is other than the Divine, that he does
not live in God in exactly the way that he is asking you to live
in God, then you are not living in Satsang with such a one, and
you are not doing this sadhana.
“Critically appraise” that! Or rather, “close your eyes and be-

lieve.” And if you open them, to even glance at a “mistake,” then
“you are not doing this sadhana.” For three decades by now, that has
been in black and white, on the printed page, for anyone who even
remotely wishes to see.
Or recall Andrew Cohen’s reported promise to his disciples:
“Anyone who loves me ... is guaranteed enlightenment.” But how is
such love shown, if not through quick and willing obedience? Could
someone who “loved” him still openly question, much less disobey?
Not if we are to believe the reports from his former disciples:
Whoever shows himself to be a loyal student is his friend.

Those who are disloyal or unreliable fall out of favor (van der
Braak, 2003).
Comparably, from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, we have this

dangerous counsel:
A courageous disciple, armored with the determination never

to displease his teacher even at the cost of his life, so stable-
minded that he is never shaken by immediate circumstances,
who serves his teacher without caring for his own health or
survival and obeys his every command without sparing himself
at all—such a person will be liberated simply through his de-
votion (Rinpoche, 1998; italics added).
Guru-devotion involves both your thoughts and actions. The

most important thing is to develop the total conviction that
your Guru is a Buddha.... If you doubt your Guru’s compe-
tence and ability to guide you, your practices will be extremely
unstable and you will be unable to make any concrete pro-
gress....
If your Guru acts in a seemingly unenlightened manner
and you feel it would be hypocritical to think him a Buddha,
you should remember that your own opinions are unreliable
and the apparent faults you see may only be a reflection of
your own deluded state of mind. Also you should think that if
your Guru acted in a completely perfect manner, he would be
inaccessible and you would be unable to relate to him. It is
therefore out of your Guru’s great compassion that he may
show apparent flaws. This is part of his use of skillful means in
order for him to be able to teach you. He is mirroring your
own faults (Beru Kyhentze Rinpoche, in [Berzin, 1978]; italics
added).
Once a person has been identified [in India] as a saint, a holy

man, nothing he does or does not do can change his title, un-
less he is caught in flagrante, and several times, engaged in
disastrous things like sex or forbidden drink. But even in such
a case, once his charisma is firmly established, there is a dia-
lectic out of such dilemma: the emancipated person is not
bound by social rules, and there is enough scripture to support
it (Bharati, 1976).
All of that, of course, is simply manipulative, power-preserving

nonsense, presented in the guise of spirituality. And it all, as we have
seen, exists just as surely in the traditional, agrarian East as in the
postmodern West, by its own admission.
The indefensibly stupid notion that the “real difficulty of ‘the
strange case of Adi Da’ is that the guru principle is neither understood
nor accepted by our culture” is clearly part of the same dangerous
apologetic. For, it is again obvious that whenever “God” is involved,
there are no checks and balances: “God” can always do whatever he
wants, regardless of the surrounding culture or tradition.
In the face of such traditional instruction, points such as the fol-
lowing, from the Dalai Lama no less, ring utterly hollow:
Part of the blame lies with the student, because too much obe-
dience, devotion, and blind acceptance spoils a teacher.... Part
also lies with the spiritual master because he lacks the integrity
to be immune to that kind of vulnerability (in Butler, 1990).
Of course, by parity of argument, one would equally place “part

of the blame” on abused women for giving up their power to men, or
ridiculously regard too-obedient children as “spoiling” their parents,
etc.
Much more sensibly:
The guru system, the Zen Master system and every other varia-
tion on that theme is just as horrible and destructive to folks
with amber skin and almond shaped eyes as it is to folks with
white skin and blue eyes. It didn’t work two thousand years
ago in Rishikesh, India any better than it works right now in
Racine, Wisconsin (Warner, 2004).
Charaka, the first-century court physician whose writings help

form the basis of ancient Indian medicine, wrote that a student
was free to ignore a guru’s orders if they jeopardized health or
were against the law. One suspects, though, that it would have
been difficult for a student so trained in obedience to decide
when the time for rebellion had come (Brent, 1972).
***
Even if the guru-figure was ever all that he claimed to be, it would
take at most a few years for an inner circle of “guards” to accumulate
around him or her. Those high-ranking followers will then work
roughly within the overall constraints set by the guru/superintendent
and immediate culture. They themselves are always looking up to the
guru-figure with respect, being at times harshly disciplined by him,
and feeling always inferior to him. They will thus exact their own
craved measures of respect, obedience and superiority, to re-inflate
their own self-esteem, from the only source available, i.e., from those
below them in the closed community. And the latter’s obedience can
only be unconditional, with no threat of rebellion, when their wills are
completely broken. (Absolute power in any context is mutually exclu-
sive with a tolerance for discontent. For, it is exactly the vocalization
and acting-out of such dissatisfaction that would show the governing

power to be less than absolute.)
People compensate for their subservience to superiors by ex-

ploiting inferiors. They feel entitled (Mike Lew, in [Bruni and
Burkett, 2002]).
Or, as Goffman noted in his (1961) study of totalistic institu-

tions, Asylums:
[W]ith the decision that [military] officer training camp has

“earned” him rights over enlisted men, the officer trainee be-
comes an officer. The pain suffered in camp can be used as a
justification for the pleasures of command.
As to those “pleasures of command” in the exercise of domi-

nance over others, Zimbardo (1971) further observed:
[W]e are all subject at some level to being corrupted by power.

It may be as children we start off with an unfair power disad-
vantage where adults tell us [as gurus similarly do later] what
to do and we have to do it. Maybe at some level we are seeking
to redress that imbalance.
Toward that same wish for redress, in proportion to the experi-

enced imbalance, Haney and Zimbardo (1998) noted:
[A]s the experiment progressed, more [prisoners] frequently

expressed intentions to do harm to others (even as they became
increasingly more docile and conforming to the whims of the
guards).
When it comes to (bowing) respect, then, it seems that the more

we give, the more we crave to get in return—easily slipping into even
the sadistic abuse of others in order to secure that.
Of course, in spiritual contexts and elsewhere, the rabid intoler-
ance for disobedience, disrespect and disloyalty in others, and conse-
quent punishment for that, could also be seen as having additional
psychological origins. Indeed, one might well take it as involving a
projection of one’s own unallowed feelings of disloyalty and wishes
for disobedience onto them, comparable to the conversion of others to

allay one’s own salvational doubts. That is, since one is not permitted
to acknowledge disloyalty or disobedience in oneself, one instead
sees and punishes it doubly in others.
The guards in Zimbardo’s study had further been instructed to
maintain order in the prison by an authority-figure. Thus, it is also
quite possible that a significant part of their behaviors might be traced
to attempts at winning the approval of that authority. If they were go-
ing to do their jobs well in the eyes of their own bosses, after all, they
could brook no discontent or disrespect from the prisoners.
The extraction of respect and obedience, in any case, will be
done via whatever means of psychological and physical manipulation
and abuse the upper echelon can get away with. And that will again
be done under pretenses (in religious communities) of “killing the
egos” of others for their own spiritual benefit. Further, it will be en-
acted within a group mentality (at all levels of the hierarchy) where to
resist what your “elders” are telling you is to invite ostracism from
the rest of the community.
***
In Zimbardo’s study, the early rebellion of the prisoners both created

a solidarity among the guards, and reinforced the awareness of the
latter that they might actually be in danger. I know of no ashram that
has ever had such an acute, concerted rebellion—Kripalu at the end of
Desai’s rule perhaps comes closest. Nor are the guru-figure or his in-
ner circle ever in any physical danger from their followers. Yet they
reportedly behave sadistically all the same, with no more tolerance for
disobedience or disloyalty than Zimbardo’s guards exhibited. That is,
the “steady state” of the environment is remarkably similar even if, in
the absence of acute transients, it may have taken longer to get there.
(It took all of a few days in Zimbardo’s prison study, even though
both the guard and prisoner participants in it were perfectly normal
and healthy individuals going into that.)
Nor would even a genuine “perfect master” (if there were such a
thing, which there absolutely is not) at the head of such a community
be able to avoid those problems. For, as much as disciples may trans-
fer their own hopes for perfection onto the guru, no such perfection
was ever ascribed to Zimbardo or to his guards. Nor did he or his
guards promulgate any “weird” system of beliefs. Nor were those

guards in any way apprised of or intending, at the start, to enact any
means of “mind control.”
Yet, in spite of those innocent beginnings, Zimbardo’s guards
actually ended up effecting sleep deprivation and controlling even the
bathroom activities and food intake of their prisoners, attempting
force-feeding on at least one occasion.
Comparably:
I wasn’t long in the [Irish Sisters of Charity orphanage] and

there was a piece of parsnip in my dinner, and it was dirty. I
politely put it to one side of my plate, and ate everything else.
The nun came down and told me to eat the parsnip. I said no.
So she force fed it to me, and I got sick. Then she force fed
that to me as well. And she started to beat me with her belt
(Raftery and O’Sullivan, 2001).
Zimbardo’s “bad” guards enacted their sadistic and controlling

behaviors not for having been told to do so by him. Rather, they
evolved those means of control on their own. That is, like the Irish
nuns above, they behaved thusly not because they were directly told
to by an authority figure, but rather just because they were allowed to.
Consider further that in Zimbardo’s study, the power was di-
vided up more or less evenly among the guards. Had Zimbardo not
been there at all (as superintendent), one can easily see that the divi-
sion of power among the guards would have been just as equal. Yet
things could only have gotten worse, faster. The point, then, is that a
group of people with absolute or near-absolute authority is no better
than is a single individual with the same power.
Nor would such a group act to enforce “checks and balances” on
each other at their own level. For, Zimbardo’s “good” guards, rather
than constraining the activities of their “bad” counterparts, simply felt
helpless in watching the sadistic behaviors of the latter.
How are we to understand why otherwise-reasonable and healthy
men would behave so impotently? First, we may note that it is typical
of human behavior that, in witnessing any objectionable activity from
within a group of comparable onlookers, we assume that “someone
else” will speak up or “call the police,” if that needs to be done. In-
deed, it has actually been shown in controlled studies that we are less
likely to intervene if we are surrounded by a group of others than as a

sole witness to a crime or emergency (Cialdini [2001]; Zimbardo
[2004b]). For, we will naturally take our cues from their outwardly
calm, evaluating behaviors, as they take their cues from ours.
As one relevant example of such covert evaluation and subse-
quent going along with the group, consider the reaction of the guest
reporting Ken Wilber’s alleged public miming of masturbation and
frequent, sophomoric requests there for blowjobs:
I laughed with everyone else, but at the back of my mind, I re-

alized I was disturbed and disappointed by it.... But other peo-
ple I talked to weren’t bothered by it at all, so maybe he just
gauged his audience correctly (in Integral, 2004).
In asking other “subjects” about whether they were bothered by

such behaviors, though, one is effectively inquiring: “Were you dis-
turbed by our emperor’s new clothes?” The obvious answer to which
is, “No, of course not.”
Regardless, having spent sufficient time in silence within a group
of onlookers, the first question one would face should one finally
openly object would be the embarrassing: Why did you keep quiet for
so long, if it was obvious from the beginning that something needed
to be done? We therefore have a personal stake in not admitting that
we should have done things differently—i.e., that we were wrong to
behave thusly. For that reason, and even merely for the sake of so-
cially rewarded consistency, we instead remain silent, allowing the
problems to continue. (Institutions such as the Vatican persist in their
errors and reported abuses in no small part exactly for being unable to
come out and admit that they have been wrong in the past [cf. Wills,
2000].) Plus, for Zimbardo’s relatively sensitive “good” guards, for
example, to speak out against the activities of their more sadistic
counterparts, would surely have resulted in their quick ostracism from
that sub-community of “alpha guards,” who actually enjoyed mistreat-
ing their prisoners.
Everyone and everything in the prison was defined by power.

To be a guard who did not take advantage of this institutionally
sanctioned use of power was to appear “weak,” “out of it,”
“wired up by the prisoners,” or simply a deviant from the es-
tablished norms of appropriate guard behavior (Zimbardo, et

al., 1973).
In evaluating the actions of their guards, Zimbardo and his col-

leagues further noted:
[T]he behavior of [the] good guards seemed more motivated

by a desire to be liked by everyone in the system than by a
concern for the inmates’ welfare.
Guards who thus want to be “liked by everyone,” however, will

not only do small favors for the prisoners and avoid punishing them,
but will equally shrink from offending their own peers. Thus, they
will again avoid speaking out against the abuses of the latter. (As
Zimbardo [1971] himself further noted, allowing those “bad” guards
free reign also makes one look “good” by comparison. That is, it casts
one’s own ego in a positive light, and allows one to feel like a better
person in that contrast.)
Whatever the theory behind the ensuing silence may be, though
—in broad strokes or in nuances—in practice it is a pervasive feature
of human societies, both secular and “sacred”:
It is evident from the testimony of former inmates that by no

means all of [the Irish Catholic nuns and monastic brothers]
behaved brutally towards the children. But it is a common
theme that the “good” nuns and brothers never interfered with
or protested about the activities of their more violent col-
leagues (Raftery and O’Sullivan, 2001).
Zimbardo has more recently (2004a) concluded:
My research and that of my colleagues has cataloged the con-

ditions for stirring the crucible of human nature in negative di-
rections. Some of the necessary ingredients are ... bystanders
who do not intervene, and a setting of power differentials.
“Bystanders who do not intervene”: e.g., “good” monks who

wonder out loud why their peers and superiors are not behaving with
integrity, but who do nothing to stop it. For, to speak up would make
them “bad disciples” and open them to retaliation/ostracism from

those tougher ones on the same level and “above” them.
“A setting of power differentials”: e.g., guru-figure, inner circle,
and peon/newbie disciples.
***
No amount of flaws shown by the spiritual teacher will dissuade the

truly sincere seeker from becoming involved and deferential. Not, at
least, if he places enlightenment/salvation as a high enough goal in
his own life, and believes that the holy figure in question can help
him get to that state faster than any other route. Thus, as Butterfield
(1994) noted in the context of his own initiation into Trungpa’s path,
with the latter having given that Vajrayana transmission via a ram-
bling, nearly nonsensical, stream-of-consciousness delivery:
He could have said very little to dissuade me, as long as I re-

mained convinced that he knew what I wanted to learn.
Ponder that point deeply, for it means that the utilization of “de-
ceptive recruiting” as a means of defining what a potentially destruc-
tive group is, is far less relevant than one might imagine it to be. For,
even without such deception, one may well truly believe (on the basis
of “genius” recommendations and the like) that one or another guru-
figure is a “great Realizer,” and that he can lead you to the same ex-
alted state if you just “surrender completely” to him. In that case, you
will put up with any amount of “Rude Boy” mistreatment in that rela-
tionship, and consider it to be for your own benefit, even if you have
been warned about it beforehand.
Even just in normal human relationships, if someone has some-
thing we want—sex, money, etc.—we will tolerate a great deal of
grief and mistreatment in order to get it. And being told up-front that
the other person is “trouble,” or that we will be asked to compromise
our principles in the process, won’t stop us from going willing into
that, if we just want the “prize” badly enough.
So, how badly do you want enlightenment?
The guru claimed to offer access to profoundly ecstatic spiri-

tual realization, and the only way to gain access to that experi-
ence was by playing his game. The better you played the game,
by showing your devotion and obedience, the greater your con-
tact with the guru and the more frequent your opportunities for
grace (Lowe, 1996).
Interestingly, the Daists have reportedly (Lowe, 1996) attempt-

ing to get the “disappointingly” tame Garbage and the Goddess out of
circulation. Likewise, Trungpa’s followers, when an exposé of the
“Merwin incident” was published in their local Boulder Monthly, ap-
parently “scurried about town, trying to keep the magazine off the
racks by purchasing several copies at a time” (Schumacher, 1992).
Books uncomplimentary toward so-called cults also tend to vanish
mysteriously from public libraries. My local city reference library, for
example—which allows no books to be taken out—is nevertheless
missing its sole copy of David Lane’s (1994) Exposing Cults. That
book itself is notably critical of Da Free John, among numerous other
“lesser lights/coronas.”
Such reported attempts at covering up questionable behaviors,
however, are fairly superfluous. For, transpersonal and integral psy-
chology are more than screwed up enough for their leading figures to
still explicitly encourage you to go along for the “adventure,” even
years after the reported methods of “Teaching” have been widely
publicized. And if you can’t trust the recommendations of one of the
“top thousand Zen realizers” of all time—an “Einsteinian genius,” no
less—whom can you trust?
Or, if you can’t take the “Rude Boy” discipline, whose fault/ego
is that?
Remember: “The greater the offense, the bigger the ego.”
Put another way: The expert reassurance of a highly respected
hero or “genius” that being disciplined by a God-realized “Rude Boy”
is the fastest way toward one’s own most-valued realization (or salva-
tion) will easily override any concerns one might have about even a
reportedly “problematic” group. It is, after all, very easy to rationalize
away the complaints of disaffected former followers as being mere
“whining” or “cowardice” on the part of people who “couldn’t take
the heat,” etc. That is so even if the group is prone to literally “beat-
ing the crap out of” its followers, as we have seen. In such a case, the
purportedly destructive group could even fully disclose all of its past
alleged abuses and plans for future mistreatment to potential mem-
bers, and new lemmings would still flock to join. (Recall how Zen
monks will allow themselves to be literally beaten black and blue just
to get into the monastery. That is, they go into that environment
knowing full well that it is a violently abusive one. They have further
in no way been “deceptively recruited” into that.)
In such a realistic scenario, then, seekers absolutely would not
merely find themselves involuntarily “recruited” into reportedly de-
structive groups by any deceptive means. Rather, they would explic-
itly go looking for those. They sought out Rajneesh’s violent human-
istic encounter sessions, too, presumably frequently on the recom-
mendations of people they admired, as opposed to going into them
without knowing what would likely occur in those groups. Likewise,
Yogi Bhajan’s (1977) explicit, printed statement that disciples might
be required to steal on behalf of the guru (e.g., Bhajan himself) was
evidently not sufficient to scare off his own reported quarter of a mil-
lion followers.
In short, all of the discipline, social isolation, law-breaking and
abuse allegedly meted out by the guru-figure and the group are fre-
quently seen in advance as being “for your own good,” toward the
death of your ego and the birth of grand realization. Thus, they should
be sought out, right?
[A]lmost everyone, without exception, was subjected to a

number of [alleged] mind-control methods, including non-stop
indoctrination, intense overwork, sleep-denial, constant peer
pressure and a barrage of demands, to the point where they
were effectively robbed of judgment.
People accepted this mistreatment because ... they be-
lieved the promise that it would break down their “resistance”
to God in the person of the Guru. People accepted that their
“egos” needed to be disciplined and “destroyed,” so that the
same “spiritual genius” the Guru claimed would awaken in
them (Elias, 1999a).
The full extent of the behind-the-scenes dysfunctionality in any

religious organization is, of course, never explained to its prospective
members up front. (Likewise, it is never disclosed at the beginning of
any job or human relationship, nor could one reasonably expect it to
be.) Still, if there is “deception” in our world’s “authentic, transfor-
mative” spiritual organizations, it is more in the guru-figures not liv-
ing up to their own teachings, or not possessing the spiritual realiza-

tion which they claim to have—an entirely separate issue. It has little
to do with potential followers supposedly not knowing that they
would be subjected to extreme “discipline,” or required to break the
law at the guru-figure’s instruction, with the reward of eventually be-
coming “as great as the guru” themselves.
And, having gone willingly into that “heat,” devotees have no
easy way out, to save spiritual face. They will therefore soon find
themselves bearing the reported abuse willingly and silently, as a pur-
ported sign of spiritual development/loyalty/obedience. Further, that
will be done in the implicit hope that if they are thus “loyal” and obe-
dient enough, for long enough, the mistreatment will stop, and they
will receive nothing but love.
That futile strategy of coping, however, is one which they share
with battered wives. Indeed, the latter, like the former disciples, fre-
quently feel unable to leave their abusive spouses in large part for
having had their own egos destroyed by being told repeatedly, in one
form or another, that they are worthless and incapable. They then be-
have accordingly, with all due expected helplessness.
[B]attered women are notoriously loyal to their abusers, and

often cling desperately to the hope that everything will change
and come out for the best. A primary task of battered woman
shelters and support groups is to break through this denial and
help the woman face the fact that the abuser is in fact doing
what he is doing. From there, recovery is possible.
The same psychological mechanisms that create loyalty in
a battered woman [e.g., by making her “complicit in her own
exploitation”—in helplessness and otherwise—from which she
“becomes supportive of the exploiter”], deliberately instilled,
can make a [so-called] cult victim loyal to the [alleged] cult
(Bob Penny, in [Wakefield, 1991]).
It is well known, further, that certain people will knowingly enter

into secular sadomasochistic relationships for “getting off” on that
pain or humiliation—having psychologically associated it with re-
ceiving love. In a like manner, spiritual seekers with sufficiently
skewed views of enlightenment, associating pain or extreme disci-
pline/humiliation with realization and spirituality, will only be attract-
ed, not repelled, by the idea of being abused “for their own good” by
a realized “god.” (Compare even the “suffering as a path to salvation”

perspectives of the likes of Thérèse of Lisieux—described by Pius X
as “the greatest saint of modern times”—and Mother Teresa in the
Catholic Church. Indeed, for a revealing analysis of the probable psy-
chological factors underlying the religious fervor, and eager embrace
of suffering and humiliation on the part of the former “Little Flower,”
see Monica Furlong’s [1987] Thérèse of Lisieux.)
The ability to put one’s own conscience aside and do whatever
the guru asks you to is further believed to be essential to God-
realization (with that being gained only through the grace of the
guru). One might well then even seek out guru-figures who are
known to be “amoral.” For, what is morality but a product of the same
conceptualization which daily blinds us to the Way Things Are? Isn’t
breaking such arbitrary hang-ups exactly what we need to do if we
wish to be free of our dualistic conceptual boundaries? So, a “wild
and crazy” guru who will “wisely” place you into situations where
you have no choice but to drop your categorizing intellect and cultur-
ally molded conscience in “choiceless awareness” would be the best
for accelerating your own spiritual evolution, yes? You could further
hardly ask up-front for a detailed list of what you might be asked to
do in such a community, as that would spoil the spontaneity of the
guru’s “divine expression,” would it not?
There is further, quite clearly, no alleged abuse or breach of con-
ventional morality so gross that it cannot be rationalized away, even
by persons outside of the residential group. That is so, particularly for
those who desperately want to believe that one or another guru-figure
is the “greatest living Realizer” or the like, and that everything he or
she does is a “Teaching.” And, one need not be “brainwashed” in or-
der to think that such rationalizations “make sense.” Rather, one
needs only to sincerely believe in the long-touted, if utterly wonky,
transpersonal/integral theory.
The voluntary entrance into known (reported) psychologically/
physically abusive and amoral environments will then quite naturally
follow. For, how else can one prove one’s “spiritual machismo” to the
heroes who have recommended “complete surrender” to one or an-
other even-“problematic” guru and environment? How else to show
that you’re serious about becoming as “enlightened” as they are in
their spiritual genius, except by “taking the heat”?
Interestingly, Live singer/songwriter Eddie Kowalczyk has ex-

pressed his early appreciation of Wilber’s (1996) A Brief History of
Everything. (That book is again the same one in which both the Py-
thagorean Fiasco and kw’s “complete rubbish” misrepresentations of
high-school-level evolutionary biology were unleashed on the world,
in a “Q & A monolog.”) He later visited with Wilber himself in Au-
gust of 1999. Kowalczyk then blurbed for Da in 2000, crediting him
with being “Real God ... incarnate as Avatar Adi Da Samraj.”
Coincidence? Or a troubling demonstration of the points above,
even with Kowalczyk meeting Da as a “celebrity” either way, and
thus necessarily having no real knowledge as to what the “Avatar”
and his reportedly dildo-wielding, corona-seeing “pod people” are
really like?
***
Zimbardo again took two dozen completely normal, physically and

mentally healthy college-age individuals. He then confined them,
willingly and voluntarily, to a closed environment; stratified the
community into guards and prisoners; and simply instructed the
higher-ups to exact obedience and respect from the lower ones. He
further introduced no charismatic leadership, weird beliefs or claims
to divinity on his own part. There was even no punishment for leav-
ing, other than the loss of the money the prisoners were to be paid for
their full-term participation in the study, and their own subjective
feelings of being “bad prisoners” in prematurely exiting. Yet, in less
than six days, and quite unintentionally, he created behaviors among
the various classes of participants which are indistinguishable from
those allegedly found in—as a very reasonable extrapolation from the
known, reported data—every ashram and every so-called cult.
It is thus not the charisma or “divine” status per se of any leader
which creates problems. Rather, the “problematic” nature is again
inherent in the power structure of every closed hierarchical commu-
nity, when that stratification is combined with basic human psychol-
ogy. Having an “infallible god-man” rather than a merely human su-
perintendent at the helm will make it harder for others to disobey or to
leave, but even without that, disobedience and departure will in no
way be easy to enact.
Conversely, each one of us is again susceptible to exhibiting

docile, “cult-follower” behavior in the right/wrong circumstances.
Tendencies toward conformity, authoritarianism or blind belief may
make it statistically more likely for any given person to be thus
fooled, but truly, “it could happen to any one of us.”
People believe that “it can never happen to them” because they
want to believe they are stronger and better than the millions
who have fallen victim to [alleged] cult mind control....
A [so-called] cult will generally target the most educated,
active, and capable people it can find. I hear comments such as
“I never knew there were so many brilliant people in these
types of groups” (Hassan, 1990).
Such beliefs as, “others could be made to do that but not me”
and “others could be swayed by speeches but not me” are dan-
gerous because they set us apart from other people who are
like ourselves and therefore prevent us from learning from
their experience what may be valuable for ourselves (Winn,
2000).
Indeed, consider Wilber’s own endorsements of Cohen and Adi

Da, and absolutely indefensible, unsolicited and continuing advice to
“surrender completely” to the latter. Does that not offer one of the
most convincing demonstrations that none of us are above being
fooled by the claims to enlightenment of even the best and the worst
of our world’s guru-figures and their corona-seeing spiritual organiza-
tions?
[O]ur experiences [with the Moonies] could happen to any

American family (Underwood and Underwood, 1979).
[E]ven people who said, “I could never join a cult,” would

walk in [to Rajneesh’s ashrams] as if on a dare and emerge no
different from a person who had entered as an eager seeker....
Bhagwan emphatically stated that what we were involved
in was not a religion, and this appealed to people who would
be the first to decry anyone who joined a “cult.” As a matter of
fact we joined a cult precisely because it wasn’t a cult (Strel-
ley, 1987).
***
Significantly, it was only when an “outsider” objected to the behav-

iors occurring within Zimbardo’s study that it was stopped. (That
came, however, only after fifty other outside observers had themselves
voiced no shock or negative opinion.) Just as importantly, that new
outsider had not previously been involved with the experiment. She
had thus not participated step-by-step in the “slow descent into mad-
ness,” instead walking straight into it, unprepared, on the sixth day
(Zimbardo, et al., 2000).
That, of course, reminds one eerily of the old experiment/story of
the frog placed into water in a saucepan on a stove, with that water
then being slowly heated. Lacking any sudden increase in temperature
to alert him that all is not well, the frog will allow himself to be
slowly cooked, rather than simply jumping out of the water to safety.
A comparable “slow descent,” invisible to those who participate
in it step-by-step on a daily basis, occurs in our world’s ashrams. In-
deed, even new members in an already “mad” environment will have
that introduction cushioned by having the most questionable aspects
of the organization hidden from them until they have demonstrated
their loyalty. To find out, first-hand, how bad things really are, then,
one must already be “halfway cooked” oneself, via that slow increase
in heat.
Consider, further, Stanley Milgram’s (1974) obedience experi-
ments. There, a majority (nearly two-thirds, in one experimental ver-
sion) of ordinary people were induced to administer what they
thought were potentially lethal shocks to even hysterically protesting
others in less than an hour, simply out of their obedience to the mini-
mal authority of an experimenter.
The most significant aspect of [Milgram’s] experiment is that

not one participant refuses to continue when the planted sub-
ject first asks them to stop. It is only later, with a threat of
death or grave illness, that people refuse to go on with the
shocks. It is always and only the scream that is heeded, and
never its antecedent, never the beginnings or first hints of pain
[i.e., never the first sensings of the “slow, continual increase in
heat”]....
One sees the same thing at work in [so-called] cults: a re-
fusal to recognize in early excesses, early signs, the full impli-
cations of what is going on and will follow later. Relinquishing

step by step the individualities of conscience, followers are
slowly accustomed to one stage of [reported] abuse after an-
other, becoming so respectful of the authority that they never
quite manage to rebel (Marin, 1995).
Both of those frightening experimental demonstrations (of Zim-

bardo and Milgram) arise simply from basic human situational psy-
chology, present as much outside our world’s ashrams as inside them.
One could, indeed, substitute respect-hungering inner-circle
monks for guards, gurus for superintendents, and younger monks for
prisoners, repeating Zimbardo’s study in any of our world’s ashrams,
and the results of the experiment would surely not change at all. Like-
wise, one might substitute elder monks for dial-turning shockers,
younger monks for shockee subjects, and gurus for lab-coated ex-
perimenters, willing to accept responsibility for the results of the
shocks, even unto death/enlightenment. In that case, one would no
doubt find the vast majority of “holy, peaceful” monks and nuns just
“doing what they were told” in that context, regardless of the conse-
quences to the physical or mental health of their shocked subjects.
(Milgram’s subjects were not behaving sadistically in raising the
voltage with which they shocked their learners, as he showed in addi-
tional experiments. They equally, however, were not attempting to
exact obedience or respect from the people they were shocking. The
difference in both motivation and behavior there is thus quite under-
standable. For, there is clearly quite a significant contrast in mindset
between trying to help someone learn, even as a semi-teacher—the
“cover story” for Milgram’s obedience experiments—versus explic-
itly attempting to exact respect and unconditional obedience from
them.)
It further goes without saying that gurus and their close disciples
would not react any more favorably to attempts to “reform” them than
Zimbardo’s guards could possibly have welcomed that, had the pris-
oners tried to improve that environment to curtail the sadistic abuse to
which they were being subjected, for example. (Compare the one
“troublemaker,” #416.) Indeed, most of those guards—willingly
working overtime, for no extra pay—were upset when the study was
prematurely ended, in contrast to the prisoners, who were glad it was
over. That is, the guards’ sadistic behaviors were in no way caused or
amplified by them hypothetically “not wanting to be there” and taking

that frustration out on the prisoners, or the like.
There has been much speculation in recent times that perhaps

so many of the nuns [running Irish Catholic institutional
schools] were cruel to the children in their care because they
themselves were frustrated, having possibly even been forced
to enter a convent by their families. There is no evidence to
support this view. In fact, quite the reverse (Raftery and
All of that is hardly surprising, though. For, as every “Rude

Boy” and sadistic guard knows, killing other people’s egos or break-
ing their wills via humiliation, or “beating the crap out of them” for
their own good, is such fun. With power being such an aphrodisiac,
who would want to give up that complete control over another per-
son’s life? (See Zimbardo, et al. [1973]; Haney, et al. [1973].)
***
William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, too, offers valuable insights into
the dynamics of closed, authoritarian societies. And interestingly,
when a movie version of that book was being filmed, the problem
which the director encountered was not in getting the child actors into
character while the film was rolling. Rather, the difficulty was in get-
ting them out of character when the shooting was stopped. As Peter
Brook explained (in Askenasy, 1978):
Many of their off-screen relationships completely paralleled

the story, and one of our main problems was to encourage
them to be uninhibited within the shots but disciplined in be-
tween them.... My experience showed me that the only falsifi-
cation in Golding’s fable is the length of time the descent to
savagery takes. His action takes about three months. I believe
that if the cork of continued adult presence [i.e., of external
checks and balances on the leaders] were removed from the
bottle, the complete catastrophe could occur within a long
weekend.
One may, of course, validly compare that with the role-playing

in Zimbardo’s study—and in each of our real lives—which quickly
ceases to be just a conscious “role.” And as far as “long weekends”
go: the degeneration of character in the simulated Stanford prison
happened literally within three days.
In Dittmann (2003), Zimbardo further traces the parallels be-
tween the mind-control methods and behaviors utilized by George
Orwell’s fictional totalitarian state in 1984, and Jonestown. Christo-
pher Browning, in his (1998) Ordinary Men, performs a comparable
mapping for the similarities between Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s stud-
ies, and the Final Solution in Poland. Significantly, the percentage of
“cruel and tough,” “tough but fair,” and “good” soldiers, respectively,
in that Solution, “bears an uncanny resemblance” to the comparable
split among the guards in Zimbardo’s simulated prison.
[U]nder conditions of terror most people will comply but some

people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the
Final Solution was proposed is that “it could happen” in most
places but it did not happen everywhere....
The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many
were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor
sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly
normal (Arendt, 1992).
***
[I]t seems to me that what went on at Naropa, although more

dramatic than what we usually see around us, was simply the
lurid equivalent of what endlessly repeats itself in America in
most systems of coercive authority, not only those at Naropa....
Trungpa’s behavior toward Merwin and Dana was essen-
tially no different—in essence or extent—from what we ordi-
narily accept without question between doctors and mental pa-
tients, or teachers and students, or military authorities [or
guards and prisoners]. It is here, where we always think disci-
pline is necessary, that we habituate people to doing what
they’re told, to acceding to authority, and to accepting without
question the ways they are treated (Marin, 1995).
There will always be those who are prone to feeling, especially from a
safe distance, that being a subject in ashramic “experiments” compa-
rable to Zimbardo’s or Milgram’s, with real (psychological) shocks
and physical deprivations in closed hierarchical environments, could
be spiritually beneficial. (Note, though, that significant concerns have
been raised by psychologists regarding the effects on the subjects in
both of those classic studies, to the point where neither of them can be
repeated today, simply for ethical considerations. And yet, ashram life
continues....)
Short of that myopia, however, the rules and behaviors of the
open-society “real world,” constricting though they may be at times,
begin to look relatively benign by comparison. Conversely, if one has
been on the inside of our world’s ashrams and then left because being
there felt like a “prison,” that feeling has a very simple explanation.
For, structurally and in terms of individual and group psychological
dynamics, that is exactly what it was.
As Zimbardo himself (1971) put it:
For me, a prison is any situation in which one person’s free-

dom and liberty are denied by virtue of the arbitrary power ex-
ercised by another person or group.
And elsewhere, with his colleagues:
The inherently pathological [italics added] characteristics of

the prison situation itself ... were a sufficient condition to pro-
duce aberrant, anti-social behavior (Haney, et al., 1973).
And, as we have seen, nearly identical characteristics are suffi-

cient to produce the same reported pathological behaviors in the lead-
ers and residents of our world’s ashrams and monasteries.
Only three things are really needed in order to begin creating a
closed, toxic environment—whether that be a “cult,” a bad marriage,
a prison or a dictatorship. And those are (i) a significant power differ-
ential between the leaders and their followers, (ii) a lack of checks
and balances on the leaders to keep them from abusing their existing
power and grabbing for more, and (iii) sufficient psychological, fi-
nancial and/or physical (e.g., locks and bars) constraints to keep the
mistreated followers from simply leaving. The increasingly “cult-
like” nature of the environment will then follow straightforward, sim-

ply via the presence of basic human psychology in both the leaders/
guards and their followers/prisoners.
Further, as in Zimbardo’s study, the only necessary difference
between those two groups is in the roles which they have tacitly
agreed to play. That is so, even while the one group invariably turns
quickly into a split collection of impotent “good guards/disciples” and
sadistic “Nazis,” while members of the other set either follow docilely
or break down emotionally, yet are unable to “just leave.”
CHAPTER XXVIII
SPIRITUAL
CHOICES
OF COURSE, NOT EVERYONE WOULD AGREE that things are as bad as

we have seen with today’s spiritual leaders and communities. Indeed,
one does not have to search far at all to find psychological profes-
sionals who are more than willing to stand up and defend the highly
questionable reported actions of our world’s guru-figures.
In 1987, for example, Dick Anthony and our perennially insight-
ful friend, Ken Wilber, teaming with another of their like-minded as-
sociates, published Spiritual Choices: The Problem of Recognizing
Authentic Paths to Inner Transformation. We will evaluate the worth
of that text shortly.
Anthony himself has often served as an expert witness in defense
of alternative religious movements accused of “brainwashing” their
members, and the like.
[He] listed some of his clients for the record. That list included
the “Unification Church [i.e., the Moonies, whose founder
‘was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy
to file false tax returns and sentenced to a term in federal
prison’ (Singer, 2003)], the Hare Krishna movement, The Way
International [and] Church of Scientology” (Ross, 2003).
Regarding the Moonies, then:
425
Last month [i.e., in July of 2002] Moon announced himself as

“Savior, Messiah and King of Kings of all humanity.” He ac-
tually splashed this across newspapers throughout America in
full-page ads (Ross, 2002a).
As Moon himself elaborated, in his Unification News (for Au-

gust 24, 2002):
In early July I spoke in five cities around Korea at rallies held

by the Women’s Federation for World Peace. There, I declared
that my wife ... and I are the True Parents of all humanity. I
declared that we are the Savior, the Lord of the Second Ad-
vent, the Messiah.
Enough said—except to add that Moon owns the Washington

Times newspaper. (The Moonies also apparently own the University
of Bridgeport, Connecticut [Hassan, 2000].) He has also been re-
ported to be a friend of (and up to $10 million donor to) the George
Bush family (Kuncl, 2001), and has had close contact with Mormon
U.S. politician Orrin Hatch.
Regarding The Way International: Details as to the allegations of
sexual misconduct against leaders at TWI exist online at EmpireNet
(2003). And for those who wish to leave that nontraditional Bible
group, the following allegations have been made:
Sharon Bell says Way members told her “it might be necessary
to kill anyone who tried to leave the group.” Timothy Goodwin
was told the devil would kill him if he left (Rudin and Rudin,
1980).
Such organizations as these, then, constitute some of Dick An-

thony’s reported clients, which he would surely, one assumes, not
hesitate to suggest are “not as bad as” the other, genuinely “problem-
atic” groups in the world. Just because they are “nontraditional relig-
ions,” after all, is no reason to discriminate against them.
Also reportedly on Anthony’s list of nontraditional religions,
however,
SPIRITUAL CHOICES 427
are the Branch Davidians [of David Koresh fame] ... and he
says, “In the United States, the Catholic Church, well it’s defi-
nitely the largest nontraditional religion” (Ross, 2003).
The idea that the Catholic Church is “nontraditional” is puzzling

—leaving one wondering, indeed, what religions might ever qualify
as “traditional”—but we may let that pass.
Anthony’s religious allegiance belongs to Meher Baba, who in
his heyday had “as many as a million devotees ... in India and thou-
sands in the United States” (Manseau and Sharlet, 2004).
When Pete Townshend of the Who embarked on his own spiri-
tual quest in 1968, he too found his guru in the voluntarily mute Me-
her—the “Baba” in “Baba O’Riley” refers to none other—as did the
Small Faces’ Ronnie Lane. (In much earlier, silent film days, Holly-
wood stars Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford once gave a recep-
tion in Meher’s honor.) Townshend actually ran a “Baba Center” in
England for a time. His solo LP, Who Came First, further grew out of
a planned tribute to the guru, who himself claimed “to have been
taken into the council of the gods and to know the future of all man-
kind” (Brunton, 1935).
As Baba O’Meher himself put it:
Once I publicly announce myself as a messiah, nothing will be

able to withstand my power. I shall openly work miracles in
proof of my mission at the same time. Restoring sight to the
blind, healing the sick, maimed and crippled, yes, even raising
the dead—these things will be child’s play to me! (in Brunton,
1935).
Indeed, Meher “Eyesight to the Blind” Baba claimed to be, not

merely an avatar, but the Avatar for this world age, after having been
confirmed as such by Upasani Baba. (Interestingly, Adi Da purports a
connection to the same Upasani Baba, if not to his twenty-five virgin
wives [Bob, 2000].) He further claimed to have previously manifested
as Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed.
In response to questions about his spiritual identity, Baba tap-

tapped things [on his letter-board] like “I am God in human
form. Of course many people say they are God-incarnate, but
they are hypocrites” (Manseau and Sharlet, 2004).
Baba further told an illustrative story of a guru who had ordered

one of his disciples to kill the latter’s own child. Having obediently
complied and buried it according to instruction, the guru then told the
same disciple to go home, where he would find the child alive, as he
soon did.
“And they all lived happily ever after.”
Though an extreme example of the methods a Master may use

in order to show his disciples the illusory nature of this phe-
nomenal world, it illustrates the unquestioning faith which a
disciple should have for his Master, and how utterly detached
and obedient he is expected to be (Adriel, 1947).
That, then, is obviously the degree of obedience which Meher

expected from his own followers, in order for them to be regarded as
being “loyal” to him—as Adriel was, and presumably Anthony him-
self still is. (Yogananda told a similar “true story” in his Autobiogra-
phy, regarding a man who threw himself off a Himalayan precipice at
Babaji’s command, to show his obedience. When subsequently
brought back to life after passing that “test,” he became one of Ba-
baji’s “immortal” band of disciples. As manipulative fairy tales go....)
Indeed, the following absurd recommendation from Anthony (et al.,
1987; italics added) would seem to support that proposal, regarding
loyalty:
The idea of a master having perfect consciousness is uncom-

fortable and unwelcome—and therefore not taken seriously—
because the perfection implies total faith, surrender, and obe-
dience to the master, no matter what one is told to do.
Indeed, as Baba himself (1967) explained:
It is only possible to gain God-realization by the grace of a

Perfect Master.
And such grace is gained, of course, only through unconditional

obedience. (Note: Anthony [et al., 1987] never actually met Meher in
the flesh, and is thus in a uniquely poor position to recommend sur-
render and total “obedience to the master.” Rather than practicing
such in-person subservience, he has simply had a few mystical ex-
periences which he precariously takes to have been initiated by the

deceased Baba. In such a situation, it would indeed be easy to have
“total faith” that one has found a “Perfect Master.” Indeed, that per-
spective is fully comparable to Wilber’s safe distance from Da and
Cohen, and his equal recommendation that others surrender them-
selves to an “adventure” which he himself has never had.)
Meher Baba’s teachings also included the instruction, “Don’t
worry. Be happy” (C. Welch, 1995). His ideas in general greatly in-
fluenced Townshend in writing his classic rock opera, “Tommy,”
about a child traumatized into being deaf, dumb and blind, and there-
after receiving his knowledge of the world only through (skin) sensa-
tions.
Ironically, Townshend himself went stone deaf within a decade
of recording that album, after years of in-concert aural abuse. Along
with Baba’s silence, then, between the two of them they covered two-
thirds of Tommy’s disabilities.
If I were Roger Daltrey, I’d be having regular eye checkups. For,
Baba’s own healing abilities, even while alive, seem to have been
markedly less impressive than he and his followers claimed them to
be. Indeed, as Paul Brunton (1935) related:
I have taken the trouble to investigate during my travels the

few so-called miracles of healing which [Meher Baba] is al-
leged to have performed. One is a case of appendicitis, and the
sufferer’s simple faith in Meher is said to have completely
cured him. But strict enquiry shows that the doctor who has at-
tended this man could discover nothing worse than severe in-
digestion! In another case a nice old gentleman, who has been
reported cured overnight of a whole catalog of ailments, seems
to have had little more than a swollen ankle!
As further detailed by Brunton, Meher’s numerous prophecies

concerning upcoming calamitous events fared no more impressively,
consistently failing to materialize on time.
Brunton then came to an understandable conclusion:
Meher Baba, though a good man and one living an ascetic life,
is unfortunately suffering from colossal delusions about his
own greatness ... a fallible authority, a man subject to con-
stantly changing moods, and an egotist who demands complete

enslavement on the part of his brain-stupefied followers.
And what did Meher himself have to say about all of those con-
cerns?
Not much:
Baba, hailed as a Perfect Spiritual Master [of which there are

supposedly exactly fifty-six present on Earth at all times, with
the highest of them always being a man (Adriel, 1947)], had
taken a vow of silence but he was supposed to reveal all and
give his followers “the word” before his death. Unfortunately
he died in 1969 before he could utter another sentence (C.
Welch, 1995).
A mere half century after Brunton’s reasonable conclusions re-

garding Meher Baba’s veracity, Feuerstein (1992; italics added)
opined:
It became evident to many that his announcement [of the an-

ticipated silence-breaking] had been meant symbolically,
though some saw it as an indication that he had, after all, been
duping everyone.
All things considered, then, good to be one of the “some” rather

than the “many.” Although, one suspects that, overall, the “many” are
probably far less in number than the “some.”
In any case, it must be quite clear by now that if “idiot compas-
sion” exists, in coddling people rather than judiciously telling them
the painful truth for their own benefit, then so too does “idiot toler-
ance.” The latter is indeed exemplified via insufferable apologetics
for unrepentant (and not infrequently highly deluded) guru-figures
and organizations of which little good can really be said. Further,
what meager good can be legitimately claimed about them does not
even begin to weigh against the bad. Thus, any “balanced” presenta-
tion would still look like an unbalanced one to anyone who had na-
ïvely bought into the scrubbed, public face of the guru-figure or or-
ganization.
Those figures and groups invariably have well-oiled PR (or
propaganda) departments which have fully succeeded in publicizing
the good elements (both real and fabricated) of the spiritual teacher
and his/her organization. It is only rarely, however, that the alleged
bad aspects of each of those make their way into print, often against
reported violent attempts at suppression or retribution.
***
Incredibly, most of the “enlightened” individuals and ashrams in-

cluded herein would have been considered to fall close to the “safest”
of the categories in the typologies of Dick Anthony (1987), et al., via
the Spiritual Choices book. That is, nearly all of the spiritual teachers
we have met thus far (not including the leaders of the Hare Krishnas,
Moonies, or Jim Jones) were:
• Monistic rather than dualistic—i.e., working toward realiz-

ing a state of inherent conscious oneness with all things, as
opposed to placing God as inexorably separate from creation
and approachable only through a unique savior such as Je-
sus, with the failure to follow the appropriate savior leading
to eternal damnation (exceptions: none)
• Multilevel—i.e., having a “distinct hierarchy of spiritual au-
thority,” in gnosis versus teachings versus interpretations
(unilevel exceptions, which “confuse real and pseudo-tran-
scendence of mundane consciousness,” include Findhorn,
Scientology, Rajneesh and TM [notwithstanding that the
Maharishi’s teachings themselves are rooted in the Vedas]),
and
• Non-charismatic—i.e., emphasizing techniques of spiritual
transformation (e.g., meditation), rather than relying on a
personal relationship between disciple and teacher as the
means of evolution/enlightenment of the former (exceptions:
Ramakrishna, Meher Baba, Neem Karoli Baba, Adi Da,
Muktananda, Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati, Jetsunma, Cohen, and
Sai Baba and Chinmoy to lesser degrees)
Trungpa, Satchidananda and Zen Buddhism were all explicitly

placed in Anthony’s “safest” category—of “multilevel, technical mo-
nism.” In his second-safest grouping (“multilevel, charismatic mo-
nism”) we find Meher Baba, Neem Karoli Baba, Muktananda, Chin-

moy and Adi Da.
If those are “safe” spiritual leaders and communities, though,
one shudders to think what “dangerous” ones might look like. One’s
jaw drops further to find that, as late as 2003, Wilber has still been
recommending Spiritual Choices to others as a means of distinguish-
ing “safe” groups from potentially “problematic” ones. That such rec-
ommendations are coming years after the central thesis (as docu-
mented above) of the text has been wholly discredited in practice, is
astounding.
Fooled by the arguments of Anthony, et al., I myself had en-
dorsed Spiritual Choices at one point in a previous work. Obviously,
however, my opinion of that book and of its authors’ ideas has ma-
tured significantly since then. Indeed, by this point I very much regret
that previous naïvete on my part, particularly when it is coupled with
ideas such as the following, from the same group of “experts”:
[Tom] Robbins and [Dick] Anthony’s own contribution [to In

Gods We Trust (1982)] includes a superb introduction—
perhaps the best single chapter in the anthology; a complete
and devastating critique of the brainwashing model; and an in-
sightful report on the Meher Baba community (Wilber, 1983b).
The relevant meager, twelve-page, utterly simplistic chapter on

brainwashing, however, is anything but a “complete” critique, much
less a “devastating” one. Whatever one may think of the brainwashing
and mind-control debate, how could a five-thousand word treatment
of that complex subject possibly be “complete”? Entire books have
been written from both sides of the controversy without exhausting it;
entire Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication designations
exist for the subject! Even if the short paper in question were the
greatest ever written, it could not possibly be “complete”!
For myself, I have found the chapter in question to be utterly un-
impressive. Indeed, it shows near-zero understanding of the psycho-
logical factors influencing one’s “voluntary joining,” and later diffi-
culty in leaving, such environments. There is nothing whatsoever
“devastating” about the text, whether one agrees or disagrees with
Anthony’s overall perspective.
By stark contrast, for a genuinely intelligent and insightful dis-

cussion of the brainwashing and mind-control question, consult Chap-
ters 2 and 3 of Michael Langone’s (1995) anthology, Recovery from
Cults. Chapter 13 of the same book offers many chilling examples of
previously healthy persons suffering mental breakdowns as an alleged
result of various, unspecified, large group awareness training ses-
sions. Child abuse in so-called cults in covered disturbingly well in its
Chapter 17.
For a revealing example of Anthony’s own wilber-esque at-
tempts at critiquing other scholars’ ideas, see Zablocki (2001).
***
Zimbardo, for one, had the common sense and compassion to remove
the prisoners who weren’t psychologically able to leave on their own,
from his simulated prison. Religious apologists by contrast, in support
of their insistence that brainwashing and mind control don’t exist,
would more likely simply leave the poor bastards there to suffer. Af-
ter all, everyone in the ashram/prison entered that totalitarian envi-
ronment voluntarily, and other people manage to leave on occasion,
so what is the problem? Why interfere with that “nontraditional” so-
ciety, where no one is being physically constrained to stay?
In our view persons have a right to enter totalistic subcultures

and have done so voluntarily for centuries (Robbins and An-
thony, 1982).
Certainly, we each have the right to enter, and remain in, any
subculture we wish to participate in; that much is blindingly obvious.
But it is not difficult to comprehend the dangers inherent in walking
naïvely into environments where, if one has bought deeply into the
teachings at any point, it is not easy to leave. There is thus at least an
obligation to warn others as to what they may be getting themselves
into, in voluntarily entering such contexts. To fight for the right to
enter and “surrender completely” to one or another “holy fool,” with-
out in any way comprehending the difficulties involved in leaving, is
beyond acceptable human ignorance. It is also absolutely guaranteed
to create more pain than it could ever alleviate.
Robbins and Anthony (1982) then give their grossly oversimpli-

fied perspective on the constraints binding people into closed com-
munities:
The psychological and peer group pressures which are mobi-

lized to inhibit leaving [so-called] cults should probably not be
equated with armed guards and fences in their capacity to in-
fluence attitudes.
But: Tell that to Zimbardo’s prisoner #819—the “bad” prisoner

who refused to leave the study—for whom those pressures were in-
deed just as constraining, and more psychologically destructive, than
any mere “armed guards and fences” could have been. Indeed,
whether the constraints take the form of peer pressures, literal fences,
or concern about “pursuing furies,” they will all have the same effect.
That is, they will all make it extremely difficult for one to leave such
environments, even having entered them voluntarily to begin with.
As I later tried to explain to people outside Scientology, I was

like a two year old child. I was incapable of leaving home.
They owned my soul. The ties binding me to the Org, though
invisible, were more powerful than any physical bond could
have been. I was in a trap more powerful than any cage with
iron bars and a lock. Mentally I belonged to them (Wakefield,
[Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard] controlled our thoughts

to such an extent that you couldn’t think of leaving without
thinking there was something wrong with you (Gerry Arm-
strong, in [Miller, 1987]).
Without having done in-depth research (particularly in the pre-

Internet days), however, such poor souls had no way of knowing what
they were getting themselves into. Thus, they suffer endlessly, for no
greater sin than having “surrendered completely” to one or another
“god” in a voluntarily entered totalitarian environment. Meanwhile,
our world’s unduly respected theoreticians congratulate themselves,
and each other, on having composed “devastating critiques” which
embody little reference indeed to the spectrum of relevant concerns.
One may further argue endlessly about what constitutes coercive

“brainwashing” or relatively subtle “mind control,” and whether any
given community is guilty of either or both of those. The answer does
not really matter here, simply because there are people trapped in
every such environment who cannot, psychologically, “just leave,”
regardless of any “theories” which may say that they shouldn’t be
thus constrained. Zimbardo demonstrated that with a mere dozen pre-
viously healthy individuals thirty years ago; as did Wilber himself,
inadvertently, at the low, suicidal point of his own second marriage.
One might further be tempted to disparage the intelligence, inde-
pendence or emotional stability of #819 as a cause for his inability to
leave the simulated prison. One would not likely cast the same asper-
sions on Wilber himself, however, in his “inability to leave” a mar-
riage which he had voluntarily and enthusiastically entered, but which
came to (at that low point) cause him nothing but distress.
One may well then be free to abandon those who cannot leave
any environment, if one’s superficial theories say that they should be
able to leave, since “others are able to.” One might even apply that
callous idea to individuals ranging from trapped disciples to battered
wives who entered their marriages “voluntarily.” One is not equally
free, however, to lay any claim to bodhisattva-like compassion, while
uncaringly turning one’s back on others who clearly cannot, in those
circumstances, help themselves. Such a “survival of the fittest/rudest”
approach, enforced in these contexts, is in no way worthy of the name
“spiritual.”
***
[So-called cults] clearly differ from such purely authoritarian

groups as the military ... and centuries-old Roman Catholic ...
orders. These groups, though rigid and controlling, lack a dou-
ble agenda and are not manipulative or leader-centered (Sing-
er, 2003).
Regarding the military, though:
[T]he military uses many components of mind control. [S]ome

vets have [told me that] their recruiter lied to them [=“double
agenda”] (Hassan, 2000).
Or this, from one of Philip Zimbardo’s (2004b) correspondents:
I joined the United States Marine Corps, pursuing a childhood

dream. [While there, I was] the victim of repeated illegal
physical and mental abuse. An investigation showed I suffered
more than forty unprovoked beatings....
The point I am trying to make is that the manner in which
your guards carried about their duties and the way that military
drill instructors do is unbelievable. I was amazed at all the par-
allels.
A body of social science evidence shows that when systemati-

cally practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destruc-
tive [so-called] cults, mind control can induce false confes-
sions, create converts who willingly torture or kill “invented
enemies,” engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly,
give up their money—and even their lives—for “the cause”
(Zimbardo, 2002; italics added).
In any case, Zimbardo’s simulated prison environment, too, had

no hidden agenda, and was not leader-centered. (It was “manipulat-
ive” only to the degree required to enforce the desired level of obedi-
ence and respect from its prisoners—or from its “congregation”—
each of whom had again voluntarily entered the study, being in no
way deceptively recruited.) Yet, “toxic is as toxic does”—that is, the
relevant effects on their members are no different, even if one can list
a series of differences in the apparent causes.
Of course, even the most reportedly destructive group will have
aspects which are not “cult-like”—particularly for members who are
only participating “from a distance” on Sabbaths or Sunday mornings,
not seven days a week. Those attributes can thus be used to argue/
theorize that the groups in question are rather “respectable” and
“mainline” ones, which might appear to match any definition for what
a “cult” is only via “picking and choosing.” What matters in each
such case, though, is the degree of infallibility claimed by the leader,
the real checks and balances placed on the same and on the inner cir-
cle, and the extent to which members are able to question or disobey
the leader(s) and still remain in good standing in the community. Also
vital is whether followers are psychologically able to leave, should
they become subject to mistreatment from those in power over them.
A few “good points” will never outweigh multitudinous shortcomings

in those other regards.
Further, whether any of those communities are leader-centered
or not is essentially irrelevant. For, one can be imprisoned by an infal-
lible, unquestionable ideology—ascribed to relevant prophets and
archaic “holy scriptures,” which one cannot disobey without suffering
severe consequences—just as easily as by an individual charismatic
leader.
As with her defense of the Catholic Church, Singer has given na-
ïvely optimistic arguments as to why the U.S. Marines are not a
“cult,” in Chapter 4 of her (2003) Cults in Our Midst. She could
surely have made nearly identical arguments about why the American
prison system isn’t a “cult,” though, had she put her mind to it. Yet,
“cult” or not, the behaviors seen in it map directly, across the board
and at a comparable level of destructive intensity, to those exhibited
by powerful and powerless members of recognized (alleged) destruc-
tive groups. Further, in real prisons, the same behaviors occur in spite
of the supposed “checks and balances” governing the guards and su-
pervisors, with those frequently having little more effect than the
comparable constraints allegedly placed on guru-figures.
Singer could equally have argued that the American educational
system is not a “cult”—and, indeed, it certainly isn’t one. Yet, Zim-
bardo himself again mapped the authority structure and behaviors of
that very system, in many significant though less intense ways, to the
prison environment.
So, one may place the “cult”/“non-cult” boundary wherever one
most likes along that continuum, depending on one’s preferred defini-
tion of what a “cult” is, or what coercive “brainwashing” or subtler
“mind control” are. The mere presence or absence of that label, how-
ever, says far less about the safety of any relatively closed, authoritar-
ian hierarchical environment, than one might like or imagine it to.
A prison or a high school or a heartless business corporation or a
fundamentalist religious ministry or a frat house during pledging
“Hell Week,” or a bad marriage or an abusive family, is assuredly not
a destructive, sadistic, brainwashing “cult,” by any definition of the
phrase.
But still ... one cannot help but notice that each of those envi-
ronments can be highly intolerant of even minor disobedience to its
authority-figures. Likewise, each may well offer no “exit clause”
whereby one can “just leave” without suffering extreme social or fi-
nancial penalties, should one be mistreated by one’s peers and/or su-
periors.
I saw that the structure of most families, businesses and gov-

ernments were as committed to keeping their members in their
places as my [so-called] cult [under Yogi Bhajan] ever had
been (K. Khalsa, 1994).
Even in a free and democratic country under siege one can see
precisely the same psychological dynamics. For, a populace rallying
‘round the flag will treat even the mildest questioning of its leaders’
abilities or motives as being near-treasonous—worthy of imprison-
ment or deportation, if not of literal excommunication. In doing so,
they are behaving exactly like the members of any “cult” would,
when confronted with even the mildest suggestion that their “divine,
infallible” leader may not actually be fit to lead, or in having the well-
being of their “saved” or “best” group be threatened.
And, just as with “brainwashed cult members,” such a populace,
too, willingly surrenders its hard-won freedoms to even the most
bumbling and dishonest authorities, in order to once again feel safe
and saved from other “evil, persecuting” outsiders. And, just as a
guru-figure and his followers may truly believe that the only reason
they are being picked on is because their superior integrity, etc.,
makes others feel uncomfortable.... And, just as the quickest way for
a guru-figure to detract from his own scandalous behaviors and asso-
ciated attempts at controlling his followers’ thoughts is to have them
focus on the “war against Evil,” which exists in full force only outside
the borders of the community, and cannot be allowed inside....
The tortures which frat house pledges in particular will voluntar-
ily undergo are further worth giving additional consideration to. For
there, prospective house members have been known to willingly en-
dure beatings, drink their own urine, and literally choke to death in
attempting to swallow slabs of raw liver (Cialdini, 2001). All of that
behavior, of course, is the product of absolutely no “mind control,”
deceptive recruiting, sleep deprivation or hypnotic chanting, etc.
Rather, it is willingly embraced simply in order that one may become
a member of an “in” group—“saved” from the “damnation” of being
a social outcaste.
The corresponding social dynamic in the world of both nontradi-

tional and traditional religion, with its associated unsaved “spiritual
outcastes” is, in my opinion, grossly underrated.
Also, consider Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments, again
showing that, when faced with the choice between being liked versus
being right or telling the truth, we frequently choose the former—i.e.,
on the average, around one-third of the time. That is, we will lie to
others, and to ourselves, in order to fit in, to not look foolish, to avoid
criticism, and/or for assuming that the group knows better than we do.
Now, simply couple that fact with the idea that if we tell our-
selves a lie often enough, we will eventually believe it. (Even in
Asch’s study, there were subjects who genuinely believed that the
obviously wrong, peer-pressured answers they had given in the group,
were actually correct [M. Underwood, 2005].)
The question now, though, is not which of several lines is the
same length as another. Rather, it is whether Guru X is the most
enlightened being around. And the “confederates” vouching for that
guru as being the “right answer” have been there longer than you
have, and are thus more spiritually advanced than you are—only
“ego” would question that, after all. Thus, they know better than you
do.
So, in that environment, simply via the pressures of conformity,
without any necessary techniques of “mind control” being applied:
Who do you think Da Greatest Living Realizer is?
Controlled studies have further shown that the greater the
amount of trouble or pain we have to go through in order to get some-
thing, the more we will value it later:
Aronson and Mills [demonstrated] that the severity of an initia-

tion ceremony significantly heightens the newcomer’s com-
mitment to the group (Cialdini, 2001; italics added).
And, of course, the more committed one is, the more difficult it
will be to leave.
The experience of Zen meditators sitting zazen in the lotus pos-
ture for hours on end, their knees burning and bodies aching—being
hit with “the stick” should they even shift their positions—will un-
avoidably fall under the sway of exactly the same principle. For, those
sitters are effectively “pledging” to be accepted as members of a fra-
ternity of more-enlightened, respected and admired individuals than

themselves.
Whether there is, or has ever been, any calculation or malice on
the part of the spiritual leaders in all that, is irrelevant here. For, the
psychological effect is just as certain. That is, when one has gone
through extreme pain in order to get closer to enlightenment and be
“one of the boys,” one will thereafter encounter great psychological
difficulty in leaving the community, or even in questioning whether
“enlightenment” is anything of value. One has, after all, gone through
far too much pain and humiliation in getting to one’s first “kensho”
experiences, to be able to admit to oneself that the grander “enlight-
enment” to come in one’s own future might not be all that it’s cracked
up to be.
Any effects of explicit “mind control” (in sleep deprivation,
love-bombing, hypnotic induction, etc.) would only be on top of the
“baseline” of conformity, and of the commitment (and ensuing diffi-
culty in leaving) involved in “pledging enlightenment.” And those
baselines, arising from simple and unavoidable human psychology,
are already enough to create environments which, were only a little
theology to be thrown into the mix, one could hardly avoid calling
religious “cults.”
“Cult members,” at least prior to joining their respective organi-
zations, do not differ significantly in terms of their psychologies and
associated mental stability as compared to their counterparts on the
“outside,” any more than Zimbardo’s “Nazi” guards and docile pris-
oners differed prior to their incarceration. (Again, explicit and recog-
nized psychological tests given prior to that incarceration documented
exactly that homogeneity.) Even more unsettling, however, the closed
societies which are composed of those same members differ from our
“safe, daily life” only in degree, not in kind.
Indeed, the fact that “problematic” groups partake of exactly the
same psychological dynamics and social structures as does our “nor-
mal” world, just at a higher level of intensity, is precisely why previ-
ously healthy groups of people can degenerate into sadistic “cults” in
less than a “long weekend.”
***
Zimbardo’s prison experiment could easily be executed within a reli-

gious context. For example, one could have the superintendent ex-
pound Eastern philosophy, even without that philosophy providing
additional reasons for the prisoners to not leave, or to obediently and
loyally do what they were told to do “for their own spiritual benefit”
or salvation. One could even wrap that leader in an ochre robe rather
than a suit or a white lab smock. In such a case, one would be hard-
pressed indeed to not regard that environment as a religious “cult,”
particularly with it being further replete with members who could not
leave without outside assistance.
Of course, “authentic gurus are enlightened” (and thus guided by
intuition to always do the right thing), but superintendents and guards
aren’t. And “true sanghas always allow for critical appraisal of their
own teachings”—so that, unlike in the simulated prison, no one there
would ever be ostracized, much less sadistically punished, for disobe-
diently or disrespectfully “rocking the boat.” And “you can just walk
out of an ashram whenever you want—it’s not a prison with “iron
bars and a lock.” What relation could there possibly be, then, between
Zimbardo’s study and authentic spirituality?
Well, a lot, it turns out.
So, as far as “spiritual choices” go, the safest thing, really, is to
“Just say, ‘No.’” Or, failing that, to ignore, as much as you possibly
can, the advice of “experts” who search too ardently for reasons to
“not worry” and “be happy” about our world’s spiritual organizations.
For example:
When questioned in 1988 [i.e., a full ten years after the Jones-
town mass suicides] about the Jim Jones group, [J. Gordon]
Melton said, “This wasn’t a cult. This was a respectable,
mainline Christian group” (Hassan, 2000).
When you are dealing with people—however warm-hearted,

kind and considerate they may be in their private lives—with such
professional views of reality as to insist that even Jonestown was not
a “cult” ... oy vey.
Nor is there, unfortunately, any comfort to be taken in the rela-
tive absence of geographic isolation in North America or the like, as
compared to Jones’ Guyana. That is so, in spite of the claims of long-
time “cult” observers such as the late Louis Jolyon West. For, in the
immediate aftermath of the Jonestown suicides, Dr. West opined:
This wouldn’t have happened in California. But they lived in

total alienation from the rest of the world in a jungle situation
in a hostile country (in Cialdini, 2001).
In the years since Jonestown, however, the tragedies involving

both David Koresh (in Waco, Texas) and the Heaven’s Gate cult (San
Diego) have occurred. Indeed, the latter 1997 suicides (and earlier
castrations) were enacted even more willingly than those of Jim
Jones’ followers had been. For, no gun-barrel threats of force at all
were required on the part of the leaders of that UFO-related cult.
Rather, the suicides were simply part of their members’ efforts to get
to the “Next Level” of conscious evolution, in actions which fully
“made sense” within the believed theology of that organization. That
is, the Heaven’s Gate followers simply did what they took to be nec-
essary to ensure their own salvation—albeit after many years of wait-
ing.
So, how badly do you want the form of salvation called “enlight-
enment”? Are you willing to do whatever it takes—to “face the heat”
of Truth, regardless of how bad it may get? To have the crap beaten
out of you? To have your ass roasted? To eat barbiturates in apple-
sauce?
[T]he line that separates religious enthusiasm from [so-called]

cult zombiehood is narrower than we commonly pretend ... our
own beliefs (or the beliefs of our friends) in angels, UFOs,
ESP, Kennedy assassination conspiracies, you name it, differ
from the elaborate sci-fi ideologies of groups like Heaven’s
Gate in degree, not in kind (Futrelle, 1997).
So, assuredly, it could “happen in California.” It already has.

The heavily armed Rajneeshpuram could easily have violently
and apocalyptically “happened” too—even without mass suicides—
had it not been for its fortunate collapse following the guru’s “brave
retreat” out of the country. Plus, much of Charles Manson’s mind-
control programming of his own followers, in the late ’60s, was ef-
fected at the machine-gun fortified Spahn Ranch, outside of Los An-
geles (Krassner, 1993).
And all of that is sadly not surprising. For, the issue in all of
these cases is the degree of isolation from outside ideas and perspec-
tives, specifically from being able to see how others “like you” are
behaving in the real world, to use that as a guide for your own
thoughts and actions. And one can be thus isolated and obsessed by
apocalyptic fears in the middle of a major city, or in a simulated
basement prison at the center of a bustling university campus, just as
surely as one can be so in the darkest jungle.
Note: Dick Anthony himself was present at an alternative spirituality-

based seminar in the mid-’80s with both Zimbardo and Wilber, along
with numerous other highly placed transpersonal psychologists. The
footnoted indication of Zimbardo’s attendance at that meeting, how-
ever—plus two inconsequential questions asked by him of an interviewee
(Werner Erhard)—is the only mention of him in Anthony, Ecker and
Wilber’s (1987) Spiritual Choices. That is, not a word is spoken of Zim-
bardo’s (or Milgram’s) groundbreaking professional work, while the
other contributors to that misled volume occupy themselves with the val-
iant struggle of determining how to distinguish “safe” guru-figures and
organizations (such as Trungpa’s and Muktananda’s) from reportedly
“problematic” ones. Nor, amazingly, have Zimbardo’s classic observa-
tions even quietly made their way into the confident arguments given
there, by people whose lives have been devoted to understanding those
issues.
Sad. Very sad.
CHAPTER XXIX
AFTER THE
ORDEAL
I thought this ashram was going to show me the way. No more

politics. Only philosophy and salvation. I should get so lucky.
There’s more politics in one Indian ashram than in the whole
of the Western Hemisphere! (in Mehta, 1979).
Ashrams are often the heaviest, most neurotic, political set-

tings I’ve ever been in (Dass and Levine, 1977).
Dass himself, recall, was a clinical psychologist at Harvard; his

categorization of others’ behaviors as “neurotic” is thus an informed,
not merely a colloquial, opinion.
Ashrams, in my experience, are lunatic asylums filled with

jealous and needy people.... [M]ost of the ashrams I have
known and visited are not sacred environments where people
progress; they’re places in which people regress—to blind ado-
ration, spiritual vanity, sibling rivalry, mirroring and parroting
of the so-called master—and in my experience, I have to say,
sadly, that I have seen very little real spiritual progress made in
them (Harvey, 2000).
Note that Andrew Harvey himself is openly gay, and yet was
welcomed into numerous ashrams throughout the world as both visi-
444
AFTER THE ORDEAL 445
tor and resident. Further, there was no apparent “chaos in the male
monastic community” resulting from that. His experience thus casts
“nineteenth century” policies which explicitly discriminate against his
orientation into sharp and uncomplimentary relief.
My life was forever altered by my experience in a [so-called]

religious cult. Not only did I abandon my passions in life, I
spent fifteen years following someone else’s path. When I fi-
nally awakened from my enchantment, I found myself with
near-zero self-esteem, a lot of regret for many wasted years,
and plenty of anger at my own naïvete, as well as being furious
with my former group. I felt that a gigantic chunk of my real
identity had been stolen from me without my conscious con-
sent. At the same time, I felt a euphoric sense of freedom and
complete delight that I now had my life back in my own hands
(Goldhammer, 1996).
ONE MAY JOIN A SPIRITUAL ORGANIZATION for reasons ranging from

the childish search for a substitute parent-figure to the mature hope of
achieving liberation or enlightenment in this lifetime. And having
thus joined, there are a comparable range of reasons to stay. In that
regard, one former ashram resident informally estimated that 85% of
monks and nuns he had met were there just for power, control or co-
dependence trips, or for fear of the world. Or, for a feeling of belong-
ing to something larger, and for enjoying the stardust falling on their
robes. That is, for adulation in their positions as ashram “rock stars,”
a respect which they would not receive anywhere else in the world for
any reason, much less for so little accomplishment as the color of the
robe they are wearing. Or, they were there “just for laziness, for being
trapped or were just too ‘short’ of brains to know any better.” (If that
estimate of 85% seems excessively harsh, consider that the Dalai
Lama himself proposed an even less complimentary figure of 90%.
My own independent estimate had been a mere 80%.)
Fond memories of past “good times,” in one’s early “honey-
moon” days with the guru-figure, can also play a role in keeping dis-
ciples living in the community (Strelley, 1987).
Other reasons for staying typically include financial constraints
and atrophied “real world” skills. Indeed, the more that one’s life has
been positively changed in the very early stages of one’s involvement
with any spiritual organization, the more likely it is that one will have
—big mistake—donated all of one’s worldly goods to the “God-
inspired” work. That noble if naïve commitment, however, makes it
much harder to leave when the “love” wears off, and you begin to
realize what you have gotten yourself into. And then, how to get out
of it? For, in the best possible successful outcome, your most recent
job reference is still, in the eyes of the business world, from a “cult.”
Doctors who had for years worked as carpenters, cooks, and

laborers began [after Rajneeshpuram collapsed] with part-time
work in emergency rooms or covering for other sannyasin
physicians who had never come to live on the ranch. Architects
worked as draftsmen and reporters as proofreaders and copy
editors. Nurses who had been in charge of whole medical
wards before they came to the ranch worked private duty or
part time in clinics (Gordon, 1987).
Of course, there are also positive reasons for staying in the ash-
ram environment, including the energies and love which the residents
have felt to be emanating from the guru-figure—whether those ener-
gies are real or (far more likely) simply imagined. By contrast, how-
ever, weigh the following, where there were demonstrably no “divine
energies” whatsoever flowing, yet the effect was substantially the
same:
The Beatles [were] such a hit that Life magazine showed a pic-
ture of people scraping up the earth and saying: “The Beatles
walked here,” as if these young musicians were Jesus Christ
Himself” (Radha, 1978).
Indeed, when the Fab Four toured North America, there were
girls in the audience not merely fainting, but literally losing bladder
control. None of that, though, was from any overwhelming, radiant
energies which John, Paul or George—much less Ringo—were giving
off, in spite of their best attempts at wearing their fame/divinity well:
Who could think ill of boys who, smothering inner revulsion,

were charming to the chain of handicapped unfortunates
wheeled in by credulous minders deluded that a “laying-on of
hands” by the four pop deities would bring about a cure?

(Clayson, 1996).
And yet, suppose that George had been christened as “enlight-

ened” by the Maharishi or the Hare Krishnas, or Elvis taken as an
avatar by Daya Mata. (Presley actually “had messianic concepts of
himself as the savior of mankind in the early 1970s” [Cloud, 2000].)
One can then only imagine the profound “darshan energies” which
their fans would have sworn, from their own experience, to be able to
feel flowing from them. One can likewise easily picture the miracu-
lous “coronas” and the like which The King might have manifested.
(Even as it stands, Elvis believed that he could move clouds with the
power of his thoughts, but that is another story. As one of his handlers
noted, if you take enough drugs, you can see anything you want.)
Conversely, no small percentage of the disciples vouching for
the divinity of their own guru-figures are the same group-thinking
ones who can see coronas which aren’t actually there, etc. Understood
in that context, their testimonies as to the greatness of any guru-figure
cannot be taken seriously. Yet, history and hagiography are filled to
the bursting point with exactly such individuals.
The late Swami Radha, for one, again looked askance at the rev-
erence displayed for the “mere mortals” constituting the Beatles. One
suspects, however, that had the relevant ground been trodden upon by
her own guru, the “miraculous god-man” Swami Sivananda Himself,
she would have been among the first to devotedly scrape it up. In-
deed, were she to have given that a miss, that irreverence would cer-
tainly have placed her in the minority among devoted spiritual seek-
ers, and would in all likelihood have called her own loyalty to the
guru into question.
I watched as eager devotees grabbed at [Sai Baba’s] footprints

in the sand, joyfully throwing the holy sand on their hair, heads
and children; and some, even eating it (Jack Scher, in [Warner,
1990]).
When I attended my Leaving Darshan, I was given a small

wooden box with something of Bhagwan [Rajneesh] in it—a
hair, or nail clipping, I don’t know what because you are sup-
posed to never open it (in Palmer and Sharma, 1993).
My mind was filled with joy to be able to eat some of Gu-

rudev’s [i.e., Nityananda’s] leftover food. I would rub on my
body particles of dust from where he had sat (Muktananda,
1978).
[C]ommon forms of homage to one’s guru include drinking the

water with which his feet have been washed (Kripal, 1995).
[A] discarded toilet seat from Jetsunma’s house had been res-
cued and saved by her students as a relic (Sherrill, 2000).
Likewise, among the sacred objects offered in a recent auction of

items which had been blessed by being touched by Adi Da was a used
Q-tip “stained with Adi Da’s precious earwax.” Minimum bid: $108
(Elias, 2000). In a previous auction, a half-smoked cigarette butt re-
portedly sold for $800 (Elias, 2000a).
As Tarlo (1997) then finally noted:
It was embarrassing to see these supposedly serious seekers

behaving [around Andrew Cohen] like a bunch of rock-star
fans.
Or conversely, as a woman once said to me at a David Bowie

concert, with regard to the headliner: “This man is God.” (Cf. “[Adi
Da] is utterly God” [in Da, 1974; self-published].)
The psychology of the “believer,” then, is obviously the same,
whether the object touched by the “holy sage” is sand, a bowling ball
or a toilet seat, and regardless of whether the sacred butt (on toilet or
cigarette) in question belongs to Jetsunma, Adi Da or Ringo Starr.
For my own part, I would have more faith and trust in Sri Ringo.
***
Frances Vaughan (in Anthony, et al., 1987) gives the following set of
questions, which potential new members of alternative religious
movements are advised to consider before joining:
Does the group keep secrets about its organization and the
leader? How do members of the group respond to embarrass-
ing questions?.... Do members display stereotypic behavior
that emulates the leader?.... Are members free to leave?....

Does the group’s public image misrepresent its true nature?
Reasonable questions, all. But where to get an honest answer to

them? From the guru-figure? From his inner circle of disciples? From
other loyal members of the group, anxious to have you join them?
Surely it is obvious that any spiritual teacher or organization with
things to hide would never tell the truth in response to those ques-
tions, instead giving the potential devotee the “right” answers which
he/she wanted to hear in the first place. And is it not obvious that all
organizations and leaders keep secrets from the public?
Does the Vatican have secrets? Yes, as every government, cor-

poration, NGO [i.e., non-governmental organization], and
other institution does (Allen, 2004).
Is it not equally obvious that all groups (even secular ones) have
“pod people” members who mimic their leaders? (Even physicist J.
Robert Oppenheimer’s graduate students used to unconsciously imi-
tate his manner of smoking cigarettes. Oppenheimer, for his own
group-thinking part, dismissed David Bohm’s work as “juvenile devi-
ationism,” going so far as to suggest that “if we cannot disprove
Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him” [Peat, 1997].) And obvious,
too, that you’re always “free to leave,” even if being “pursued by dis-
asters” to “drown in the dark sea of ignorance” afterwards ... and that
the public image never properly represents the true nature of the spiri-
tual teacher or community?
Were common sense to play a greater role, one might instead do
the obvious, in evaluating any particular guru-figure: simply talk to
former disciples who have split from the “master,” and ask them why
they left! That latter approach, indeed, is the only way (short of pub-
lished exposés) to accurately gauge the character of the guru-figure
and community.
The best way to learn about a specific group is to locate a for-

mer member, or at least a former member’s written account
(Hassan, 1990).
Minimal thought applied to that subject would further disclose

that the amount of perceived validity and “divine love” in the sage
being evaluated at the beginning of the disciple’s involvement or
“testing period” has little relation to his or her real character. Indeed,
such differential would be far greater than the difference in the degree
of “perfection” seen in a potential romantic mate on a first date, say,
versus after a decade of marriage.
You would not, unless you are a complete cad, hire a private in-
vestigator to quietly uncover dirt on a prospective mate, when falling
in love with her or him. Neither could you objectively ask (or even
covertly research) the intrusive questions suggested above by
Vaughan of any “holy sage” and his or her organization, when you
are already “falling in love” with them.
And then, where those two ideas cross:
[Paulette Cooper] had in front of her pages of detailed reports

from another [alleged] cult operative.... He had, for a short
while, been very close to her, and pretended to be in love with
her....
The secret agent told his superiors that on the outside he
was sympathetic [to her troubles] but inside he was laughing:
“Wouldn’t [Cooper’s depressed talk of suicide] be a great
thing for Scientology?” (Marshall, 1980).
As to Vaughan’s suggested questions above, then: Even if you

did ask them, you would truly have to be born yesterday to think that
you would ever get an open and honest answer.
***
Jack Kornfield, years ago, penned a landmark exposé for Yoga Jour-
nal. There, he presented the results of his own research, disclosing
that thirty-four of the fifty-three American yoga teachers whom he
surveyed (64%) had had sex with their students. Those indulgences
encompassed preferences ranging from heterosexual, bisexual, homo-
sexual, fetishist, exhibitionist and monogamist, to polygamist.
How to react to that? As both the people at Kripalu and the Dalai
Lama figured out for themselves through simple common sense, the
proper response to father-figure gurus and teachers who reportedly
cannot keep their hands off their disciples in spiritual incest is quite
simple. That is, one must criticize them openly and, if they will not
change, pack one’s bags and leave.
Or, even better, wisely send the teacher packing.
Yet, just when we may be thinking that we have finally found a
guru-figure, in the Dalai Lama, who can actually see things even
halfway clearly ... well, we find the same man musing aloud that it
may indeed be possible for great yogis such as Drukpa Kunley to
sleep with other men’s wives only for their (wives’) benefit.
Smiling slightly, His Holiness explained that Drukpa Kunley

could understand the long-term effects of his actions because
he had attained the nondual insight known as “One Taste.” All
experiences were the same to him: He could enjoy [eating] ex-
crement and urine just like the finest food and wine (Wheeler,
1994).
Ken Wilber himself, however, has again attained to the One

Taste state of which the Dalai Lama speaks so highly, thus allegedly
being able to “understand the long-term effects of his actions,” e.g., in
endorsing Adi Da and Andrew Cohen. (No word on Wilber’s prefer-
ences of fine wine versus urine, etc.) Those endorsements, however,
plus his continuing, insult-filled misrepresentations of David Bohm’s
brilliant work, absolutely prove that “choiceless awareness” cannot be
a valid basis for one’s allegedly “always behaving appropriately in
every situation.” Note also that even the Dalai Lama is thus guilty of
romanticizing the spiritual accomplishments of persons whom he re-
gards as being greater than himself. Indeed, he is probably doing that
to a comparable degree as his own spiritual state is undoubtedly over-
estimated by his most loyal followers.
Further regarding Kunley himself:
There is little doubt that Drukpa Kunley would have broken

the incest taboo if he had thought that this might serve his
mother’s spiritual growth (Feuerstein, 1992).
Drukpa Kunley ... when asked by a follower, Apa Gaypo, for a

prayer to strengthen his religious resolve, answered:
Drukpa Kunley’s penis head may stick,

Stick in a small vagina,
But tightness depends upon the size of the penis.
Apa Gaypo’s urge to gain Buddhahood is strong,
So strong,
But the scale of his achievement depends upon the
strength of his devotion (French, 2003).
As prayers go, it’s certainly one of the more interesting....

Kunley’s exploits included claims of his having slept with five
thousand women—but evidently no men—“for their spiritual bene-
fit.” So here we have someone who ostensibly drew no distinctions
between excrement and urine, versus “the finest food and wine.” That
is, he potentially enjoyed both sets equally, for experiencing every-
thing—including his own thoughts, sensations and emotions—as hav-
ing the same “One Taste.” In other words, he “experienced” them
with no division between subject and object, and no recoiling from
psychological engagement in those various psychic relationships. And
yet, like the strictly heterosexual Wilber, he obviously still distin-
guished between men and women as sexual partners, only indulging
in the female of the species in that regard.
Very fishy, that—to allegedly not distinguish between one’s cu-
linary enjoyment of filth versus appropriate foods, but to still be
bound by largely learned/cultural sexual preferences.
Feuerstein gives many additional “fairy tales” of the violent
“crazy wisdom” exploits of Kunley and others. None of those mythic
stories could possibly be literally true. Yet, all of them have undoubt-
edly been used, at one time or another, to excuse the behaviors of
foolish individuals masquerading as sages, both past and present.
Consider:
[Adi Da] likes to compare his work to the crazy-wise teachings

of some of the great adepts of the East. In particular, he once
remarked, “I am Drukpa Kunley.... This is exactly what I am in
your time and place” (Feuerstein, 1996).
***
Traditionally, in Asia, vows and moral precepts have protected

teachers and students from sexual and other forms of miscon-
duct. In Japan, Tibet, India and Thailand, the precepts against

harm by stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, or abuse of intoxi-
cants are understood and followed by all members of the reli-
gious community....
In modern America these rules are often dispensed with,
and neither TV preachers nor Eastern spiritual teachers have
clear rules of behavior regarding money, power and sex
(Kornfield, 1993).
Yet as we have seen, contrary to the romantic belief that things are
different in Asia: In Japan, local girls throw rocks over the monastery
walls, receiving ready responses to those “calling cards.” (Such en-
ticement, though, is hardly needed, given the documented propensity
of monks there to sneak out over the walls even without solicitation.)
In Tibet, while masturbation and oral sex are taboo, whores are okay
as long as you pay for their services yourself. In Thailand, with a
population that is 95% Buddhist, monks get their names in the papers
for having been caught with pornography, sexual paraphernalia, and
more than one woman at a time. And that publicity is even independ-
ent of their Rajneesh-like collections of vintage cars, some of which
were obtained via the misuse of temple funds. (Ironically, Kornfield
himself practiced meditation “in the remote jungles of Thailand” un-
der the guru Ajahn Chah in the early ’70s [Schwartz, 1996]. Perhaps
the jungles there are simply not “where the action is,” but in any case,
the idea that precepts are in general followed there or elsewhere in the
East “by all members of the religious community” in no way matches
the facts, as we have repeatedly seen. For more of the same purely
wishful thinking regarding “Eastern gurus,” see Andrew Harvey’s
[2000] conversation with Ken Wilber.)
And things could be different in contemporary India, building
upon the constraints “obeyed” by Ramakrishna and the like? Sadly,
no:
That little seven year old is a real Lolita. She’s the best lay in
the ashram (in Mehta, 1979).
Or, as one five-year-old boy in Rajneesh’s Poona center com-

plained: “Fuck, fuck, fuck, all we ever do is fuck!”
At least one “older and wiser” six-year-old girl in the same

community, however, saw things from a more adult perspective; for
she
delighted in grabbing men’s genitals through their robes. An-

other offered to suck the penis of every man she saw in the
public showers (Franklin, 1992).
Of course, that situation did not improve upon Rajneesh’s messi-

anic move to America, where one could easily find three-year-old
girls sobbing their hearts out to their mothers:
None of the boys will fuck me!.... It’s not fair! Just because I
wear diapers they won’t fuck me. They said I’m a baby! (in
Franklin, 1992).
To that, the mother’s patient response was simply an encour-

agement to her child to stop wetting herself at night, at which point
she would not have to wear diapers anymore.
“Problem solved.”
With the additional penchant of early-teenage girls in Rajneesh’s
America for sleeping with men twice their age, Franklin went on to
note:
Scores of ranch swamis would have been considered child mo-

lesters out in the world.
Consider also the relevant problem of Tibetan lamas taking pri-

vate female consorts in spite of their public vows of celibacy—
reported by June Campbell on the basis of her own experience as such
a consort to a universally revered lama. That rule-breaking was never
lessened by tradition, hierarchy or lineage:
[W]hile a lama would, to all intents and purposes, be viewed

publicly as a celibate monk, in reality he was frequently sexu-
ally active, but his activities were highly secret (Campbell,
Further, note again that Chögyam’s Trungpa’s teachings and be-

haviors, for one, were verified as authentic not merely by the (disillu-
sioned, late) student Butterfield but by the head of his own Nyingma
School. Indeed, by that verification, his behaviors were exactly in ac-
cord with that 1800-year-old tradition, dating back to Milarepa. Given
that endorsement, it was obviously for working within the alleged
“checks and balances” of his tradition, not for being freed of them
when emigrating to the West, that Trungpa had people publicly
stripped and humiliated. From the same “obedient following” of se-
lected traditional rules—i.e., of only the ones which he felt like fol-
lowing, without meaningful censure for violating others—his succes-
sor again infected his disciples with AIDS, criminally believing that
“God would protect them.”
Likewise, consider the reported non-effect on Trungpa when the
Sixteenth Karmapa came to America in 1974:
It had been six years since His Holiness and Chögyam Trung-
pa Rinpoche had last seen each other, and the Karmapa had
doubtless heard lots of stories, some true, some exaggerated,
about how this former monk had immersed himself in the
Western world. But now as they met His Holiness smiled
broadly, and it was clear that everything was all right (Fields,
1992).
Additional research, though, discloses that the same Karmapa ac-

tually later “non-recognized” Trungpa. Further, the Dalai Lama, too,
pointedly canceled a scheduled visit to Trungpa’s community from
his itinerary during his first, historic tour of America in the 1970s
(Clark, 1980). Part of the motivation for that cancellation no doubt
arose from the suggestion, by an officer in Trungpa’s paranoid, sub-
machine-gun toting organization, that (in all seriousness) the Dalai
Lama was conspiring to assassinate the Karmapa.
Neither of those quiet lamaic signs of disapproval, of course, did
anything to keep Trungpa in check from making additional “mis-
takes.” But it is still a little bit comforting to know that those two la-
mas at least had some sense left in them. For, one can easily contrast
even that ridiculously mild censure with others who have touted
Trungpa’s teachings and sangha as being the first foray of “authentic
Tibetan Buddhism” into America (Bharati, 1974).
Acharya Reginald Ray is another of Chögyam Trungpa’s con-
temporary followers. He is thus undoubtedly familiar with the details
of his “principal teacher’s” life. He therefore had this to say regarding

the effect of traditional “checks and balances” on the behaviors of
gurus and their ilk:
In Tibet, even the tulkus—these very well-trained people—

were surrounded by people who were watching them all the
time. Even the ordinary village people knew what was appro-
priate behavior and what wasn’t. If a guy went off, he’d be
nailed (in Caplan, 2001).
Yet, in spite of such claimed watchfulness and the supposed pun-

ishment for “going off” vouched for by Ray, Trungpa managed to
sleep with women “since he was thirteen,” actually getting one preg-
nant before having left Tibet, while still under a vow of celibacy. He
further obviously suffered no discipline in response to that, from “or-
dinary village people” or otherwise, sufficient to get him to stop that
blatantly “inappropriate behavior.” In short, in no way did he get
“nailed” for that.
One wishes, truly, that there were a visible correlation between
the documented realities of situations like that, and the distortions
which are presented to the Western public as “factual” by respected,
life-long “experts.”
While I do not know what people mean when they claim that
everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I do know that no one
has a right to be wrong in his facts (Askenasy, 1978).
It was, further, not merely Trungpa himself who was trans-

planted into the West. More importantly, the closed communities,
feudal/hierarchical power structures and “infallibility of the guru”
teachings of his ancient Tibetan tradition formed the basis for his own
little spiritual “kingdom” in Boulder (Marin, 1995). And it is those
structures, not any excessive partying per se, which create the “super-
intendent/guard/prisoner” environment which ruins people’s lives just
as much in non-“crazy wisdom” surroundings as it does in “uncon-
trolled” contexts such as Trungpa’s.
It is true that Trungpa (1981), for one, gave at least lip service to
encouraging “an attitude of constant questioning, rather than ignoring
our intelligence.” Butterfield’s descriptions of the interview process
undergone during his own admission as a student, however, show that

one could not become a member of Trungpa’s community without
buying into the full set of ridiculous superstitions. Consider also Mer-
win’s fate, when he attempted to question rather than going blindly
along with the dictates of the guru and his group-thinking community.
It is issues like these, not half-baked, pulled-out-of-thin-air theory,
which matter in evaluating the potential for harm present in any “true
sangha.”
Note further that, by Feuerstein’s own testimony, Drukpa
Kunley’s sexual exploits “did fly in the face of custom and propri-
ety.” That is, his “crazy wisdom” behaviors were not constrained by
the agrarian society in which he lived.
Obviously, then, after all that, neither social nor cultural nor psy-
chological-development variations can account for the “difference”
between guru-disciple relationships as practiced in the East versus the
West. Rather, when it comes to the demand for blind obedience, and
to the reported abuse of sex and power, the problems and alleged
abuses exist, and have always existed, just as surely “on the other side
of the pond” as they do in North America. (Cf. Ramakrishna, and the
history of Zen and of lama-sexing, child-torturing Tibetan Bud-
dhism.)
Persons looking to account for a non-existent “difference” be-
tween East and West in all this further generally ignore the natural
effect of the passage of years on the involved individuals. Someone
like Trungpa was going to become increasingly self-destructive as the
years went by regardless, for his childhood pains and otherwise. It
was his own psychology, not “the West,” which gave him license to
drink himself into an early grave.
Further, being worshiped by one’s disciples as a “god” for years
on end would go to one’s head in the East just as much as in the West.
It would also predictably result in an increasing feeling that one could
“get away with anything,” regardless of whether or not the surround-
ing society and culture had become more liberal at the same time.
If one goes from the East to the West, then, being worshiped
equally in both as time goes by, one’s increasing disregard for moral
rules in that later West can in no way be reduced to a simple sur-
rounding cultural or social matrix phenomenon. Rather, the bulk of
that can be accounted for simply on the basis of the aforementioned
grandiose inflation, fuelled by the willing obedience and obeisance of

one’s close, devoted followers.
Put more bluntly: Although power corrupts, it also takes time to
thus corrupt. If other things are changing simultaneously with that
passage of time, it may be easy to mistake them for the cause of the
corruption. For nearly every guru-figure, however, there was a time
early in his (or her) life when he could have been regarded as exhibit-
ing “impeccable integrity”; a later time when he allegedly began
breaking rules which hurt others; and a yet later time when he had
hurt so many people that his alleged sins began to “find him out.”
Some such figures lived their entire lives in the West, some came to
the West from the East, and some spent their entire lives in the agrar-
ian East. For the latter, nothing of the “unconstrained” West can be
regarded as the cause of their reported misdeeds; and yet the alleged
corruption in the claimed misuse of power and sexuality happened all
the same.
Likewise, regarding “tradition”: Aside from Rajneesh, Sai Baba,
the Caddys, Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Ananda Moyi Ma and
Ammachi (whom we shall soon meet)—plus L. Ron Hubbard and
Werner Erhard—every other spiritual leader we have considered
herein came from within a recognized teaching lineage. (Aurobindo
might even claim Vivekananda as a teacher.) Yet, that has clearly
done nothing to “keep them in check,” or even to ensure/test that they
were anywhere near as enlightened as they claimed to be.
***
After all that, it is almost a relief to find an actual instance of Eastern

rules being “followed by all members of the religious community,” as
Kornfield and others claim:
The real temptation many men face when they come here [to a
Thai Buddhist forest monastery] is masturbation. You are not
supposed to do it. Once you have been ordained, if you break
this precept you must come and confess it to the senior monk.
It’s worse if you are a bhikkhu [monk]. Then a meeting of the
sangha is required and penance must be handed down. The
guilty monk has to sit at the end of the food line. For seven
days no one can do anything for him. It’s really embarrassing.
I remember one fairly senior monk had a serious problem with
this. Whenever the villagers came in to bring us food in the

morning, they would see him sitting at the bottom of the line
and laugh (Ward, 1998).
It is one thing for monasteries to focus on humiliating their resi-

dents for such a trivial activity—which surely affects, for harm or
good, no one but the individual practitioners in the privacy of their
own bedrooms, and should hardly merit a meeting of the entire com-
munity to discuss it. It is quite another, however, for them (or their
“big city” counterparts) to overlook or attempt to cover up embez-
zlement, the use of prostitutes, and the indulgence in necrophilia and
karaoke, etc., on the part of their other residents. Indeed, the situation
is no different, in that regard, than one finds with the horrendous be-
trayals of trust reported within the Catholic Church, worldwide. Such
major alleged abuses are then left to be brought out by muck-raking
journalists whose conscience has evidently not yet been completely
dulled by blind adherence to a set of archaic precepts.
One further cannot help but note that Buddhism has surpassed
even the Catholic Church, here, in terms of the need for confession
(to one’s superiors) and humiliating public penance, for even ridicu-
lously minor “sins.” And that Church is by no means an easy one to
surpass, in terms of guilt and ignorance:
Even today, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic

Church holds masturbation to be a mortal sin [i.e., one “pun-
ishable by eternal damnation, unless one repented in confes-
sion”], though few serious theologians consider it a cause for
the loss of heaven (Berry and Renner, 2004).
***
Interestingly, had Rajneesh and his inner circle of followers not gone
“over a line” with their public bioterrorism activities, etc., his ashrams
would still be viewed today as fine models of how spiritual communi-
ties should be run—as J. Donald Walters’ Ananda was, for example,
prior to his own disgrace. That is in spite of the fact that, as early as
1979, the National Institute of Mental Health had been warned that
Rajneesh’s Poona ashram might become “another Jonestown”
(Gordon, 1987). (Likewise, the San Francisco Zen Center had “long
[been] thought of as the very model of a modern Zen center,” prior to

the “Apocalypse” following from the public airing of Richard Baker’s
hitherto-private reported activities there [Fields, 1992].)
Until Rajneesh spoke publicly, the only charges pending

against him or anyone else on the ranch were related to immi-
gration fraud. If he hadn’t exposed Sheela’s wrongdoings, the
authorities would probably never have found informants to tes-
tify, let alone obtained convictions on wiretapping, poisoning,
and arson. And if Rajneesh hadn’t tried to flee the country,
both he and his commune would in all likelihood still have
been in Oregon (Gordon, 1987).
The composition of that same ex-ashram is of significant inter-

est:
According to the Oregon University survey, 11% of the [Raj-

neeshpuram] commune members had postgraduate degrees in
psychology or psychiatry and another 11% had B.A.’s in the
field (Fitzgerald, 1986).
Thus, nearly one-quarter of the residents at Rajneeshpuram were

trained psychologists. That documented fact does nothing to increase
one’s confidence in the ability of the profession to spot openly patho-
logical behavior in contexts where its members have a vested interest.
For, while most members of the Rajneesh community were not aware
of the more grossly illegal activities going on there until after the fact,
Sheela’s own “duchy” included suppression of any “negativity.” In
her world, further, even constructive criticism qualified as that, and
was punished accordingly. Of course, all that one gets out of that,
other than an enforced obedience, is a superficially “happy” commu-
nity of people—as in the Maharishi’s ideal society—reminding one
too much of the Python sketch involving an unhappy man sentenced
to hang by the neck (or meditate) “until he cheers up.”
The sociological studies of safely distant, academic “Rajneesh
watchers,” etc., would fall into the same category of deep concern.
Indeed, for such scholars, publishers of exposés, by Milne for exam-
ple, have been deemed worthy of denigration as “schlockmeisters”
(cf. Palmer and Sharma, 1993).
“Idiot sociology.”
Nor were Bhagwan’s sannyasin psychologists merely at the

“bottom of the barrel” in their professional abilities or standing:
The “Hollywood crew” [included] the best-known therapists in

town—all of them had taken sannyas (Strelley, 1987).
Rajneesh, interestingly, was actually regarded as “the intellec-

tual’s guru”: “[T]he educational level of the followers of Rajneesh
was far greater than most of the rest of the population” (Oakes, 1997).
An astounding number of therapists and leaders of the human

potential movement are current or former disciples of Bhag-
wan’s, although few, if any of them, publicly acknowledge it
(Franklin, 1992).
Many of these therapists had the sense, before they came to

Poona, that Rajneesh was at least a master therapist, that his
work might represent the next step in the evolution of psycho-
therapy (Gordon, 1987).
Those, of course, are the same people who decide, through the
peer review process and as a “community of competent, intersubjec-
tive interpreters,” what constitutes truth within humanistic psychol-
ogy. The same peer-adjudication of truth naturally occurs within con-
sciousness studies in general, influenced by Wilber and his col-
leagues, for example.
Interestingly, from the early ’70s until the collapse of his empire
and IRS-inspired flight into Mexico in 1991, Werner Erhard reigned
as the “guru of the human potential movement.” Indeed, even in An-
thony, Ecker and Wilber’s near-worthless (1987) Spiritual Choices,
the interview questions (led by John Welwood) put to Erhard centered
only on whether est training granted an “enlightenment” comparable
to that purportedly realized through traditional spiritual disciplines.
That is, there was not even the slightest whisper of any concern ex-
pressed regarding its safety, in spite of those authors’ own later char-
acterization of the interview as being “spirited.” (The interview itself
was conducted in 1981—half a dozen years after Brewer’s [1975]
exposé of the alleged negative effects reportedly experienced by vari-
ous est participants.)
Wilber has, in the past, sat on the Board of Editors of The Jour-
nal of Transpersonal Psychology, as have Ram Dass, Dr. Herbert
Zzzzzzzzzz Guenther, Ph.D., and “the best stripper in town,” Chögyam
Trungpa. Current members of that board include Michael Murphy,
who again genuinely believes (1992) that Ramakrishna’s spine
lengthened during his Hanuman sadhana.
Murphy is “the leading integral theorist of his generation,”
according to Wilber’s Integral Naked (2005) website. And with
“theories” like his, who needs reality?
Also on the JTP board is one Mr. Paul Clemens, whose Blue
Dolphin publishing company catalogue contains books by authors
who can (they believe) literally hear God and Jesus speaking to them,
and literally converse with leprechauns—the latter existing, fractal-
like, in the “third-and-a-half dimension.” None of those are finan-
cially lucrative best-sellers, which could then perhaps have been ex-
cused as being published only for their dollar value.
Note further: The above book on leprechauns, by the imaginative
Tanis Helliwell, was actually endorsed by Jean Houston, the former
president of the Association of Humanistic Psychology. (See Carroll
[2004e] for more of the story on that one.) Indeed, Houston there
credited Helliwell with being a “deep seer.”
Again, who needs reality or the (dirty word) scientific testing of
such claims, when it’s so much easier to just believe whatever you’re
told ... and have your own foolish and utterly unsubstantiated claims
equally swallowed in return?
What caliber of thought, then, would you expect from a “field of
scholarship” whose peer reviewers and leading theorists seem to
genuinely believe that leprechauns and their ilk are real? Or, for a
group of people among whom Wilber is one of the “level-headed,
understated, thoughtful ones,” whose work has been consistently
“well-researched” (!), what would you expect the lesser lights of the
“profession” to look like? Would it surprise you to find that they
seem to genuinely believe that the voices they hear, and the elfish
beings they see, are real?
As Clemens and his wife say: “Think like a dolphin!”
You may start out taking transpersonal/integral/parapsychologi-
cal claims seriously, as David Lane, John Horgan, Susan Blackmore
and I once did. And there is nothing so very wrong with that, up to a
point. For, each one of us, at one stage or another in our lives, has
committed to mistaken ideals and perspectives simply for not know-

ing any better, and for believing far too much of what we were told by
people whom we trusted to have done at least minimally satisfactory
research and vetting of their own beliefs and purported abilities. With
regard to transpersonal, integral and parapsychological claims, how-
ever, if you simply keep reading and thinking widely, beyond the cot-
ton-headed, ninny-bunny-ridden field itself, the transition from be-
liever to skeptic is unavoidable.
Conversely, to exist for decades in those fields as a member in
good standing is a sure sign that one is relying more on the part of
one’s brain that is responsible for mere wishful thinking, than on the
section which is to credit for coherent, rational analysis.
Speaking of which: Dr. Roger Walsh is another respected mem-
ber of the JTP board. He is also on the Board of Editors of the Jour-
nal of Consciousness Studies. Plus, he’s another founding member of
the Integral Institute, who has compared Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spiri-
tuality to Hegel’s and Aurobindo’s work in its scope—if not in its
purported effect on world peace. Walsh has recently stated, with an
absurd-to-the-point-of-being-laughable degree of exaggeration, but at
least with no reference to little green Irishmen:
Ken Wilber is one of the greatest philosophers of this century

and arguably the greatest theoretical psychologist of all time
(IntegralNaked, 2004).
Ah, but is he as great a philosopher as Rudolf Steiner? Or L. Ron

Hubbard? The jury is still out.
Walsh actually teaches philosophy (among sundry other sub-
jects) at the University of California at Irvine, and might therefore
claim some measure of informed expertise in voicing the above opin-
ion. Still, such puffery surely reminds one far too much of Wilber’s
own pontifications as to whom he imagines the top shabd yogis, Real-
izers, or “strongest dinosaurs” to be. And, given Walsh’s evident
complete unawareness of the radical shortcomings in Wilber’s work
(and character), and simultaneous touting of the wonderfulness of all
that, it would appear that kw’s imperial hyperbole and radically un-
founded confidence in his own opinions may be contagious.
And lest we forget Aurobindo in that pestilence: Wilber’s own
personal assistant—the “Mini KW”—has him (mini-oracularly) des-
ignated as “the world’s greatest philosopher-sage” on the Integral Na-

ked (2005) website. Ya want some syrup to go with that devotion,
kid? Or some mature perspective on top of your three semesters of
undergraduate philosophy? (Yes, three semesters.) Not that your in-
flated hero hasn’t declared far more on the basis of far less knowledge
and research. But still, a little less mirroring around “the fairest theo-
retician of them all” would surely serve the integral kingdom better.
Frances Vaughan, incidentally, is Roger Walsh’s wife. Both are
close friends of Ken Wilber—and founding members of the Integral
Institute—to the point of having introduced him to his second wife.
Together, Walsh and Vaughan (1988) edited a book of selections
from Helen Schucman’s A Course in Miracles (ACIM)—attempted
pithy sermons which were purportedly channeled from Lord Jesus
Christ in 1965.
‘Cause evidently the leprechauns were all out.
Wilber, interestingly, had this to say (in Klimo, 1998) about the
Course:
I’m not saying that there was not some transcendental insight
involved and that Helen probably felt that it was certainly be-
yond her day-to-day self. I think that’s true [italics added]. But
there’s much more of Helen in the Course than I first
thought.... It’s not all pure information, there’s a lot of noise
that gets in. I also found that if you look at Helen’s own po-
etry, you’re initially very hard pressed to find any difference
between that and the Course.
Yes. No doubt. As they say, “No shit, Sherlock.”

And, why might that “non-difference” be? The answer is obvi-
ous to anyone who isn’t desperately trying to find spirituality and
paranormality in what can much more reasonably be viewed as sim-
ply one woman’s overactive imagination and inability to distinguish
reality from her own fantasies.
Or do you believe that Jesus Christ spoke directly to Helen
Schuchman in the mid-’60s, dictating over a thousand pages of gar-
den-variety New Age pablum to her?
Regardless, anyone who was actually impressed with ACIM to
the point of compiling an insipid “best of” from it that makes Andrew
Cohen’s printed drivel look wise and insightful by comparison,
should think more than twice before considering himself to be in a

position to rank the world’s great philosophers. That applies, I think,
even if the person in question is a peer reviewer amongst a field of
comparably fine “scholars.”
The same vapid, compiled book was endorsed as “marvelous ...
inspired and profound” by Willis Harman, former president of IONS.
In a similar vein, Walsh and Vaughan’s (1993) anthology, Paths Be-
yond Ego, has a foreword written by John E. Mack, M.D.—Harvard’s
now-late, laughably credulous alien abduction expert (Carroll, 2004).
As if to close the circle, the foreword for Walsh’s (1999) Essential
Spirituality was written by the Dalai Lama, and is dedicated to Judith
Skutch Whitson—president of the Foundation for Inner Peace, pub-
lisher of A Course in Miracles.
Of that same uninspiring book, Ken Wilber burbled/blurbed:
“The field of spiritual books has been looking for its own Lewis
Thomas or Carl Sagan, and I believe Roger Walsh may be that one.”
Sagan, however, was not merely a cogent popularizer of serious sci-
ence, but also one of the world’s more prominent skeptics, who would
not for a moment have taken babble like ACIM seriously. (Interest-
ingly, though, Sagan’s widow and Wilber’s UFO-appreciating friend
Joe Firmage are co-investors in the attempt to popularize real “cos-
mos” science [Phipps, 2001].) Any “Carl Sagan of spirituality” would
be one who would keep asking pointed questions and demanding
properly conducted research ... at which point even the most hitherto-
certain claims of the transpersonal/integral field rapidly crumble into
a pile of fairy dust.
As to the psychological profession in general, Storr (1996) has
demonstrated that both Freud and Jung created personality cults—
initially populated by many other respected psychological profession-
als—around themselves:
Freud’s dogmatism and intolerance of disagreement led to the

departure of many colleagues, including Adler, Stekel, Jung,
and eventually Rank and Ferenczi, from the psychoanalytic
movement. When his associates remained faithful disciples,
Freud gave them his approval; but when they disagreed, he
abused them, or accused them of being mentally ill. Adler was
described by Freud as paranoiac, Stekel as unbearable and a
louse; Jung as brutal and sanctimonious.
What is remarkable about Freud’s leadership of the psychoana-

lytic movement is that although he quite clearly did not believe
in any kind of supernatural creator, he adopted almost without
exception the strategies of those who did. In effect he treated
his own theories as if they were a personal revelation granted
to him by God and demanded that others should accord to
them the reverence which the sacred word usually commands
(R. Webster, 1990).
And as we have seen, leading professionals in humanistic psy-

chology thought that Rajneesh was “at least a master therapist.”
(Likewise, “Fritz Perls, founder of Gestalt therapy, defended [L. Ron]
Hubbard’s early work ... and briefly received Dianetic counseling”
[Atack, 1990].) Comparably, as we have seen, transpersonal and inte-
gral psychologists today regard Ken Wilber as a rare genius and a
compassionate bodhisattva.
Think about all of that before you feel obliged to take any of
their other ideas or unsolicited analyses seriously.
Think of the tree and water spirits.
Think of the reincarnating computers.
Think of the “unreal” half-wings and the “real” coronas.
Think of Ramakrishna’s “lengthening spine.”
Think of the leprechauns.
Interestingly, Richard Price had actually visited and subse-
quently repudiated Rajneesh’s India ashram in the ’70s. (Price was
one of the co-founders of the humanistic potential Esalen community,
that “hotbed of sexual experimentation” located three hours south of
San Francisco.) That distancing, however, was strictly for the vio-
lence he observed in their encounter groups, not for any stated com-
prehension of the potential for pathological “problems” which exists
inside every closed society.
Price actually noted a style of “manipulating group pressure to
force conformity” (Fitzgerald, 1986) in those encounter groups, in his
formal letter of protest sent to the ashram staff and to Rajneesh him-
self. One will, however, find that manipulation in every ashram set-
ting, with or without encounter groups. In any case, Price’s objections
were not directed at the ashram in general, which environment he
fully enjoyed. Yet that “enjoyable” community is exactly where the
real pathologies later manifested.
Price and Murphy’s Esalen, like Findhorn, is itself a relatively

safe community. Or “safe,” at least, when not being haunted by future
mass murderers:
Esalen was, at this time [i.e., August of 1969], just coming into
vogue as a “growth center”.... Obviously [Charles] Manson felt
Esalen a prime place to espouse his philosophies. It is un-
known whether he had been there on prior occasions, those in-
volved in the Institute refusing to even acknowledge his visits
there....
Manson would tell Paul Watkins ... that while at Big Sur
he had gone “to Esalen and played his guitar for a bunch of
people who were supposed to be the top people there [Mur-
phy? Price?], and they rejected his music” ... just three days
before the Tate murders (Bugliosi and Gentry, 1974).
Prior to that, the Beach Boys had recorded (in September of

1968) one of Manson’s songs, “Never Learn Not To Love,” for their
20/20 album. Manson and his Family had actually lived in (drummer)
Dennis Wilson’s house in 1968-9. It was Dennis himself who had
once taken Manson to Roman Polanski’s house, at which the murder
of the latter’s wife (i.e., centerfold Sharon Tate) and others later oc-
curred.
Between that and Mike Love’s interest in the Maharishi, that the
Boys managed to sustain any “good vibrations” at all is nothing short
of amazing. (The Maharishi actually toured with the Beach Boys in
1968, to the complete disinterest of their fans, causing the tour to be
cancelled halfway through, already half a million dollars in debt
[Kent, 2001]. Chump change for His Holiness, but still....)
***
The inner circle [in Jetsunma’s ashram] was always careful to

protect newcomers from the darker side of the center—and the
things they would not be able to comprehend correctly
(Sherrill, 2000; italics added).
The present book is, of course, exactly an attempt to provide a rela-

tively comprehensive disclosure about what reportedly goes on “be-
hind the ashram gates.” That is, it is a cataloging of the alleged ac-
tions which one would not “comprehend correctly” if one were to find
out about them too soon in one’s involvement with any group. In-
formed decisions may then be made regarding one’s participation in
our world’s nontraditional and traditional spiritual organizations.
Of course, each new approach which comes along may be the
“one clean spiritual path” whose guru-figure is everything he or she
claims to be, with an inner circle of disciples who care nothing for
their own power or respect, and simply want to make the world a bet-
ter place by first changing themselves.
And if you buy that, I’ve got an ashram in Florida I’d like to sell
you ... because that’s exactly what I once thought SRF was. And yet,
even the holy Tara Mata’s attitude toward other, lower members of
that compassionate and “God-guided” society embraced the totalitar-
ian ideal:
In an organization, no one has a right even to think except the

members of the Board of Directors (in Walters, 2002).
Comparably, as Thomas Doyle (2002) observed, with regard to

the Catholic Church:
There is a solid principle in political science that says the gov-

erning elite of an organization will eventually think it is the or-
ganization.
No surprise, then, that exactly the same principle would apply to

our world’s nontraditional religious organizations, in their ashrams
and otherwise. How could it not? ‘Tis simply human nature.
Interestingly, devotees who tire of SRF and Yogananda fre-
quently end up following Sai Baba, Chinmoy, or the “hugging avatar”
Mata Amritanandamayi (Ammachi).
Many people have called Amma[chi] a saint or sage and be-

lieve that she is a great master, a reincarnation of Divine
Mother, Krishna, Christ, Buddha, or Ramakrishna.... When
asked if she believes this about herself, she responded that she
basically did not want to claim anything or that she was any
particular incarnation of a god or goddess (Cornell, 2001).
And yet—
“The Mother of Immortal Bliss” [i.e., Amritanandamayi]

claims to be the living manifestation of all the divine god-
desses of the Hindu pantheon combined (Macdonald, 2003).
In presenting Amma with the Gandhi-King Award for Non-

Violence in 2002, the Jane Goodall further reportedly characterized
her as being “God’s love in a human body” (in Ammachi, 2004).
Understandably—or not—then,
Amritananda[mayi] went underground in 1983 when the police

confronted about twenty-six women who claimed to be pos-
sessed by gods and goddesses (Premanand, 1994).
Sarah Macdonald’s (2003) clear-eyed experiences with Am-

machi in darshan leave one further wondering:
Amid the push, shove, knee-crunch and head-yank I concen-

trate on my question.
“What is my purpose, what does God want from me?”
Again, the flash of the nose ring, the gentle hold of the
neck and the whisper in the ear. The answer, my purpose in
life is: “rootoongarootoongarootoongarootoongarootoongaroo-
toonga.”
My shoulder nearly dislocated by the yank out of the
Mother’s midst, I wait for a vision. Is the purpose of my life to
root?
Well, you gotta have goals. Or at least a “special purpose.”
***
One can again always find apologists for whom allegedly abusive
gurus/teachers are only “a fraction of a percentage” (i.e., less than
1%) of the whole. To the same “compassionate experts,” students at-
tract to themselves the teachers and guru-figures they deserve:
In almost all cases, the sincere student is with a corrupt teacher

because he or she has areas of blindness that are either getting
fed or reflected by the teacher....
When I encounter someone who argues vehemently

against the student-teacher relationship, almost inevitably they
are unconsciously trying to heal something still unsettled either
in their present life or in some former circumstance....
It has been suggested that false prophets are decoys to de-
ter the masses of less determined seekers so that only those
who are serious enough to pay the price for true mastery will
discover it (Caplan, 2002).
But did the “true prophet” Ramakrishna’s (or Sai Baba’s) young
male disciples, faced with the alleged sexual interests of those gurus,
and going along with them because they believed that their “God in
the flesh” wanted them to, “bring that upon themselves”? Was David
Bohm’s brutal mistreatment at the hands of the “authentic sage”
Krishnamurti a necessary price to pay for his own “true mastery”? (In
Bohm’s case, that cruelty was the primary component inducing his
suicide-considering nervous breakdown. It ultimately led to electro-
shock therapy, not to any greater enlightenment at the hands of the
“World Teacher.”)
The Wilber-admiring Caplan does not “name names” in her
evaluations of “decoys” and her spirited defense of the hierarchical
guru-disciple relationship in general—though she does consider 95%
(her figure) of gurus to not be worth following. However, it is quite
obvious from the content of her writings and of the interviews within
them that she and her interviewees specifically regard Krishnamurti,
Aurobindo, Meher Baba, Trungpa, Muktananda, Ma Jaya Sati Bhaga-
vati and Andrew Cohen as being “authentic sages.”
Interestingly, Ram Dass’ experiences with Bhagavati (in her
“Joya” days, with “no escape clause”) did not prevent Caplan from
interviewing both of them in the same (2002) book. She further did
that without giving any indication that “Ma” is anything less than (in
Caplan’s own words) “an internationally respected spiritual teacher,
as well as a forerunner in the global fight for human rights and reli-
gious freedom.” Bhagavati has received equally positive coverage,
independent of Dass’ well-known claims regarding her past, in (sur-
prise) Cohen’s (2001) What Is Enlightenment? magazine. Conversely,
in Caplan’s view, it could apparently only be other, unspecified “bad
apples” who are guilty of messing up their naïve followers’ lives, not
any of these “compassionate sages.”
Perspectives such as that are again sadly what passes for wisdom
in today’s spiritual marketplace. One then follows such advice only at
one’s own peril. After all, if these “experts” are wrong, it is your life
that will be at risk of being shattered, not theirs.
Interestingly, Caplan’s largely misled (2002) book has been hy-
perbolically endorsed by the Trungpa-following Welwood as being
“the most comprehensive, lucid, well-argued, utterly straightforward
and honest work on the whole guru question that there is.” Caplan
herself is a devoted disciple of Lee Lozowick, the latter of whom has
a “special relationship” with Adi Da, and is a friend of Andrew Cohen
(Rawlinson, 1997). Lozowick himself, however, has been critiqued
by at least one former disciple, as follows:
I think he is deluding himself when he claims to be fully en-

lightened.... During public gatherings he would constantly use
four-letter words, ramble on about sex and anal fixations, and
generally behave and speak in a totally asinine way (in Feuer-
stein, 1992).
Of his prolific, if unknown, rock band (“Liars, Gods, and Beg-

gars”), Lozowick has predicted: “LGB will be bigger than the
Beatles” (Rawlinson, 1997).
And thus, “more popular than Jesus Christ,” too.
The wise Lozowick is further of the opinion that Sai Baba is a
“master [of] the physics of form,” i.e., that the latter’s purported ma-
terializations of vibhuti and the like are genuine (Caplan, 2001). It is
more than ironic, then, that both of Caplan’s relevant books are con-
cerned in significant part with how to distinguish “authentic” guru-
figures from “decoys.”
***
After all that, are “delusions of enlightenment” alright? Some would

ridiculously say so:
Better these people should think they’re enlightened, which is

a wonderful aspiration, than be robbing stores or taking heroin
or beating their wives or kicking their dogs. I think that one of
the most wonderful things is the delusion of enlightenment,
even if it is a delusion. At least it represents an aspiration that
is better than an aspiration to be a murderer (Joan Halifax, in

[Caplan, 2001]).
Yeeeiikes!!!
Are the “best” of history’s “sages” really better than our world’s
bank robbers, drug addicts, wife abusers or animal mistreaters? Are
they not arguably worse? For, note that more than one of them has
allegedly misused (i.e., effectively stolen) temple funds, or feasted
while his most devoted followers starved, thus exhibiting less moral
sense than the average bank robber. (Stealing from a church or from
one’s friends and admirers, after all, has got to be morally worse than
stealing from a faceless corporation or a bank.)
In the same vein, more than one has been accused of physically
beating or otherwise brutally oppressing his or her spouse. As the Mill
Valley Record (Colin, et al., 1985) reported:
On one occasion during a raucous party at the church sanctu-

ary in Clear Lake, eyewitnesses say they saw [Adi Da] push
his wife Nina down a flight of stairs. They also claim that dur-
ing that party Jones pulled a sizable hunk of hair from her
head.
[Rajneesh] wasn’t the Master [Deeksha had] fallen in love

with. She’d witnessed him beating Vivek once, she swore
(Franklin, 1992).
Recall also Swami Rama reportedly kicking women in the but-

tocks. And further:
Chögyam Trungpa wrote that Marpa, the tenth-century Tibetan

guru, “lost his temper and beat people.” Marpa is also consid-
ered an incarnate Buddha, the spiritual father of Tibet’s great-
est yogi Milarepa. Maybe his beatings were compassion in dis-
guise, but it is hard to understand why the same argument
could not be made for the drunk who abuses his wife and chil-
dren (Butterfield, 1994; italics added).
In terms of the aforementioned (and above-denigrated, by Hali-

fax) use of illicit and abused prescription substances: Included among
the usage attributed to various “genuine sages” have been LSD, mes-
caline, psilocybin, nitrous oxide, and the opium derivatives Percodan
and Demerol. Also amyl nitrite, a blood vessel-dilator used to cause a
“high” or to improve sex; and, it goes without saying, marijuana. Not
to mention Quaaludes reportedly given as a medical treatment in Raj-
neeshpuram. (That only Percodan, Demerol, Quaaludes and nitrous
oxide among all those are recognized as being—like the opiate her-
oin—physically addictive, seems somewhat beside the point.) And
God only knows what the police were expecting to find when they
raided Trungpa’s Scottish center. (People with nothing to conceal
generally do not feel the need to desperately hide themselves, as
Trungpa did, in such circumstances.)
Even metaphorically, the analysis fares no better:
Fred [Stanton]’s final comment on Andrew [Cohen] was, “An-

drew creates addicts. It’s like giving people heroin” (Tarlo,
1997).
On top of that, we again have “genuine masters” allegedly build-

ing secret passageways leading to the dormitories of young girls in
their care. (Caplan quotes frequently and respectfully from Muktan-
anda in her books, thus inadvertently providing a bad, bad example
from him of how not to do the guru-disciple relationship properly.
Both of her relevant books were written well after the 1994 New
Yorker exposé of him by Lis Harris.) Plus, we have the reported pe-
dophilia/ephebophilia of universally revered figures such as Rama-
krishna, as an early precursor to the allegations against Sai Baba.
Also, holy Zen masters “beating the crap out of” their disciples, even
to the point of death, and being celebrated for their macho, “ego-
killing” abuse by foolish persons who themselves have obviously
never been thus “beneficially” beaten. And all of that is ever done, of
course, “in the name of God, for the compassionate benefit of all sen-
tient beings,” by great bodhisattvas and otherwise. And woe unto any
“disloyal” disciple who should even think otherwise, and thereby risk
his “one chance at enlightenment” in this life.
I myself am again in no way anti-drug, anti-dildo, anti-secret-
passageway-to-the-dormitory, anti-whorehouse, anti-orgy or anti-
leprechaun. It is simply obvious, by now, that any of those, when put

into the hands of “god-men” who have carved islands of absolute
power for themselves in the world, only make an already dangerous
situation much worse.
We can surely agree with Ms. Halifax in her three decades of
experience, though, that the delusion of enlightenment generally
“represents an aspiration that is better than an aspiration to be a mur-
derer.” Unless, of course, you’re Charles Manson. For, he borrowed
heavily from Eastern philosophy in creating his own pre-rational view
of the world, hinted at “deity status” for himself, and believed that
“since all is one, nothing is wrong.”
Manson ... called himself “a.k.a. Lord Krishna, Jesus Christ,

Mohammed, the Buddha” during a 1986 parole hearing
(Agence, 1999).
After all that, it should be painfully clear that the delusion of

enlightenment is the most dangerous, not the most wonderful, delu-
sion. (Again, Jim Jones and David Koresh had similar messianic re-
gards for their own enlightenment as does the still-incarcerated Man-
son. In all three of those “worst” cases, the delusion of enlighten-
ment/divinity undeniably helped create the violent tragedies for which
they are each known.) That most-dangerous regard is so if for no
other reason than the effect that it has on the ensuing naïve followers.
For, those end up throwing their lives and sanity away on persons
who, even while laying claim to the highest levels of enlightenment
(whether validly or psychotically), grandiosely deceive themselves,
and then mislead others, all with the apparent goal of being given the
proper obeisance due to themselves as “enlightened masters.”
And as far as the treatment of animals goes, the spellbinding
writer Deborah Boliver Boehm (1996) relates her experiences in a
Japanese Zen monastery in Kyoto, upon being presented with two
stray kittens:
“Will you keep them?” Saku-san asked.

“What if I didn’t?” I asked.
“Then they would be left to die, or to be found by some-
one else if they were lucky.”
“But why doesn’t the sodo adopt them?”
“Because then we would become a dumping ground for

every unwanted cat in town, and they would tear up the tatami
[straw meditation mats]. Besides, some monks have allergies.”
“But what about the vow you take every day, to save all
sentient beings?”
“It’s a nice idea, but not very practical,” said Saku-san
with a wide-shouldered shrug.
At least they don’t kick their dogs, swat bugs, or drain water
with mosquito larva in it, though. That, after all, would violate the
precept of not doing harm to other creatures.
And yet—
[B]eneath the smiles Tibetans obviously are not perfect. It’s

not all loving-kindness here; I see a monk beat a dog, another
one smokes and while Buddhist texts forbid meat, the fleshy
bodies of sheep hang in roadside butcher boxes attracting
swarms of flies and shoppers galore....
I know the Dalai Lama has tried to turn vegetarian but so
long as he and other Tibetan Buddhists continue to eat meat,
the tinge of hypocrisy will remain (Macdonald, 2003; italics
added).
Well, at least they don’t ... at least they don’t, um ... no, wait,
they do that too, um....
***
Having said all of that, one can still sadly strike a much more nega-
tive note, when it comes to the effects of messianic delusions of en-
lightenment/divinity on both leaders and their followers:
Adolf Hitler had a mystical awakening at Pasewalk Hospital in

1918, following the defeat of Germany; it led to his decision to
enter politics (Oakes, 1997).
Hitler by now was possessed by delusions of grandeur.... Con-

vinced that he was Germany’s political messiah, his supporters
unashamedly referred to Hitler as a prophet.... After reading
Mein Kampf, Joseph Goebbels, later the Party’s propaganda
chief, wrote “Who is this man? half plebian, half God! Truly
Christ, or only St. John?” For the growing number of “disci-
ples” gathering around Hitler at this time—referred to as the
“charismatic community”—Hitler was more than just a politi-
cian offering political and economic solutions, he was a messi-
anic leader embodying the salvation of Germany (D. Welch,
2001).
As if to further close the circle, then, we find this, in Goodrick-

Clarke’s (1994) Occult Roots of Nazism:
The Ariosophists, initially active in Vienna before the First

World War, borrowed from the theosophy of Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky, in order to prophesy and vindicate a coming era of
German world rule....
At least two Ariosophists were closely involved with
Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in the 1930s, contributing
to his ... visionary plans for the Greater Germanic Reich in the
third millennium....
Ravenscroft adapted the materials of Rudolf Steiner ... to
the mythology of occult Nazism.
Nor was that the only relevance of Eastern metaphysics to the

Nazi cause:
Savitri Devi, the French-born Nazi-Hindu prophetess, de-

scribed Hitler as an avatar of Vishnu and likened Nazism to the
cult of Shiva with its emphasis on destruction and new crea-
tion....
[She] was sure that Hitler had realized he was an avatar
while still a youth (Goodrick-Clarke, 2003).
Overall, truly believing that you are “enlightened and can do no

wrong”—as every “messiah” and nearly every “meditation master”
has role-played himself into believing—gives you unlimited license
to mistreat others “for their own good.” Indeed, it actually places your
conscience farther out of reach than if you were knowingly manipulat-
ing them purely for your own selfish benefit, as a simple con man (or
woman).
As Professor J. H. von Dullinger insightfully observed over a cen-

tury and a quarter ago:
All absolute power demoralizes its possessor. To that all his-

tory bears witness. And if it be a spiritual power which rules
men’s consciences, the danger is only so much greater, for the
possession of such a power exercises a specially treacherous
fascination, while it is peculiarly conducive to self-deceit, be-
cause the lust of dominion, when it has become a passion, is
only too easily in this case excused under the plea of zeal for
the salvation of others.
For that primary reason, among many secondary others, the

“guru game,” even when enacted by “genuine masters” (such as the
swooning Ramakrishna, the Force-ful Aurobindo, the caste-conscious
Ramana Maharshi, the non-healer Meher Baba, and the firewalking
Yogananda) is more dangerous than is any secular power-play or con
game.
Even when performed with integrity and sincerity? Yes. In fact,
doubly so:
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance

and conscientious stupidity.
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
And Lord, have we seen enough of that.
***
Most of the “great sages” whose behavior we have touched upon

within these pages have been men. Notable exceptions, however,
have included Ramakrishna’s wife, Aurobindo’s “Mother,” Mukta-
nanda’s Gurumayi, and Yogananda’s Daya Mata and Tara Mata.
Also, Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati, Ammachi, Jetsunma, and Andrew
Harvey’s Mother Meera. The latter’s original hope, at age fourteen in
the 1970s, had actually been to replace Aurobindo’s Mother in the
Auroville ashram in Pondicherry, following that Mother’s passing
(Minor, 1999):
She had ... received visions of both Sri Aurobindo and the
Mother in which they told her that she was entrusted with the
work of completing the transformation of the world they had
begun. The language of Aurobindo and the Mother are regu-
larly a part of her descriptions of these visions, but often, she
said, Aurobindo and the Mother actually appeared to her and in
their conversations commissioned her to continue the work.
The entirely non-mystical, twentieth-century, late Russian-

American philosopher Ayn Rand (d. 1982), too, apparently managed
to create a personality cult around herself. Loyalty there was evi-
denced to the point where one of her sincere followers reportedly
floated (in the late ’60s) the idea of murder as a means of dealing with
an unfaithful (and otherwise married) former lover of the homely, yet
eminently rational, Ms. Rand (Shermer, 1997).
The endangered ex-lover in question was the dashing Nathaniel
Branden—Rand’s “intellectual heir,” to whom Atlas Shrugged was
dedicated. (The book itself was the “greatest human achievement in
the history of the world,” according to Rand and Branden.) Together,
they encouraged followers of Rand to consider them as being “the
two greatest intellects on the planet.”
Branden himself was later to host a delightful dinner, in the mid-
’80s, for his good friend ... the “intellectually powerful” ... Ken
Wilber (1991). Branden is, further, another one of the founding mem-
bers of Wilber’s Integral Institute.
From the former’s own website (www.nathanielbranden.net):
The name Nathaniel Branden has become synonymous with

“the psychology of self-esteem,” a field he began pioneering
over thirty years ago. He has done more, perhaps, than any
other theorist to awaken America’s consciousness to the im-
portance of self-esteem to human well-being.
One would expect no less, though, from one of the two “greatest
intellects on the planet.”
So, it is a small, small spiritual world, after all. And even smaller
when one considers what happens when other scholars “go bad”:
[Frithjof] Schuon, blessed by God and the Virgin Mary, [be-

lieves that he] radiates grace from his body—at all times but
most potently when he is naked; and that this is itself a salvific

act....
[His given initiations] consist of Schuon in a state of
semi-nakedness at the center of a circle of semi-naked female
disciples (Rawlinson, 1997).
Even when fully clothed, Schuon was evidently no ordinary

man:
He himself says that “I was from the beginning a person dif-

ferent from the others, I was made from different material.” An
unpublished paper, The Veneration of the Shaykh [written by
his Da-like fourth “wife”], says that Schuon is “an eminent
manifestation of the eternal sadguru ... an ‘avataric’ phenome-
non ... a ‘prophetic’ figure ... and a great bodhisattva”; that he
demonstrates the qualities of Shiva and Krishna; and has af-
finities with Abraham, David, Christ, and Muhammed....
One disciple who questioned Schuon’s authority was
branded as mad; another was called “a natural swine”; and
many others (including these two) were excommunicated
(Rawlinson, 1997).
Dr. Schuon, as a recognized expert in the perennial philosophy

or transcendent unity of religions, was of course referred to respect-
fully, in far less interesting ways, in Wilber’s early (e.g., 1982, 1983)
writings.
At least kw never contributed childishly gushing forewords for
any of Schuon’s books, though. That would be tough to live down.
Should the aforementioned male/female numerical discrepancy
in guru-dom still irk, however, consider the revered Bengali mystic
Ananda Moyi Ma, who herself claimed to be an avatar, or direct in-
carnation of the Divine Mother. Indeed, after meeting her in 1936,
Yogananda (1946) expressed his evaluation of her degree of spiritual
advancement thusly:
I had found many men of God-realization in India, but never

before had I met such an exalted woman saint.
Arthur Koestler (1960), however, added the following informa-

tion regarding Ananda’s character:
[F]rom the age of twenty-eight onward, for an undefined num-

ber of years, she was unable to feed herself. “Whenever she
tried to carry food to Her mouth, Her grasp slackened and a
large part of the food slipped through Her fingers”....
There were ... occasions when, at the sight of an Un-
touchable eating rice, or a dog devouring garbage, she would
begin to cry plaintively, “I want to eat, I want to eat.” On yet
other occasions, she had fits of ravenous overeating....
She was prone to weeping, and to laughing fits which of-
ten lasted over an hour. She liked to tease her devotees and to
display a kittenish behavior, though sometimes her playfulness
could more appropriately be called cruelty. When [one of her
closest followers] was ill, she did not visit him for several
months, and on certain occasions during his convalescence she
expressly forbade that food be sent to him.
Ma herself was nevertheless credited with having profound heal-

ing abilities, as Yogananda’s (1946) niece relates:
At the entreaty of a disciple, Ananda Moyi Ma went to the

home of a dying man. She stood by his bedside; as her hand
touched his forehead, his death-rattle ceased. The disease van-
ished at once; to the man’s glad astonishment, he was well.
All such claimed abilities and exalted realization aside, however,

the following incident stands out and rankles:
An old woman came forward, prostrated herself, and begged

Ananda to intercede for her son, a soldier reported missing af-
ter a clash in the border area. Ananda kept chewing pan, ignor-
ing her. The woman began to shout and sob in near-hysterics.
Ananda said harshly, “Go away,” brushing her aside with a
single gesture, and the old woman, still crying, was led from
the room (Koestler, 1960).
If there is compassion in such behavior, only one not yet suitably

shaken from the pleasant fantasy that such actions might be a mani-
festation of God “working in mysterious ways” could find it.
Consider further that it has been reported that the vast majority
of the individuals currently sitting on the SRF Board of Directors are
nuns. And those have given no indication whatsoever of any wish on

their part to give up the rigidly hierarchical structure of that organiza-
tion, or their choice positions in it.
To Daya Mata, we and everyone who disagrees with her are—

to quote a favorite expression of hers—“pipsqueaks”....
Daya Mata actually said once to Brother Anandamoy and
me, “Let’s face it, women are more spiritual than men” (Wal-
ters, 2002).
The revered Mata herself has been prominently featured in vari-

ous magazines, in celebration of her role as one of the world’s first
female spiritual leaders, and thus as “part of the solution” to the
world’s problems.
Of course, the women in Rajneesh’s ashrams were part of the
same “solution”:
True to Rajneesh’s vision of women as “the pillars of my tem-

ple,” women dominated the leadership of the movement (ex-
cept for Bhagwan “Himself”). Braun notes that women con-
trolled over 80% of executive positions in Rajneeshpuram
(Palmer and Sharma, 1993).
And Rajneeshpuram, as we know, was the Oregon ashram infa-

mous for its salmonella, electronic bugging and alleged murder plots.
Undeterred, Ma Bhagavati has informed us:
If people don’t accept women teachers, that’s the end of every-

thing, because the men have made a real mess of things (in
Caplan, 2002).
Bhagavati, recall, was the reportedly self-professed “incarnation

of the Divine Mother” whom Ram Dass, on the basis of his own ex-
periences, totally repudiated in the mid-’70s, in his “Das and Dasser”
period, and her days as the gold-bangled “Joya.”
“The end of everything,” indeed.
Mother Teresa, sadly, fares no better in the harsh light of day, as
Aroup Chatterjee’s (2003) Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict has
demonstrated:
[Mother Teresa] has been quoted as saying that suffering is a

means of attaining Christ; to suffer along with the suffering
helps one come closer to God. In other words the poor and dy-
ing are to her only a means of attaining salvation for herself.
Their suffering, which is a replay of the suffering of Christ,
gives her spiritual succor. Hence the tremendous funds at her
disposal have never been used to set up a state of the art hospi-
tal where much of the suffering could be alleviated or pre-
empted; to establish schools which would rescue generations
from poverty; to renew the slums of Calcutta and eliminate
disease and crime. For, she has a vested interest in the per-
petuation of poverty and sickness and death.
Nor were those religious issues by any means the only problems
with Teresa’s work and character:
She inflated her operations and activities manifold in her

speeches to journalists and supporters. Often her statements
would have no connection with reality whatsoever. Many
times she had been captured on television while telling very
tall tales about her work. She prevaricated even in her Nobel
Prize acceptance speech....
[W]hen it comes to social issues, even the present pope is
much more liberal than Mother Teresa....
Mother was confronted on the issue of pedophile priests
by the Irish journalist Kathy Ward. She replied, “Pray, pray
and make sacrifices for those who are going through such ter-
rible temptations.” It is not that she was against custodial sen-
tencing per se: a few times she said that she wanted to open a
special jail for doctors who performed abortions.
Christopher Hitchens (1995) had earlier written his own less-

detailed exposé of Teresa:
[S]he once told an interviewer that, if faced with a choice be-

tween Galileo and the authority of the Inquisition, she would
have sided with the Church authorities....
“She also touched on AIDS, saying she did not want to
label it a scourge of God but that it did seem like a just retribu-
tion for improper [e.g., homosexual or promiscuous] sexual
conduct.”
And how did Ken Wilber (2000a) jump the gun, in voicing his
positive attitude toward Mother “Superior” Teresa upon receiving
(media) news of her death, nearly half a decade after Hitchens’ ex-
posé?
Mother Teresa was much closer to that divine ray [than was
Princess Diana, who died in the same week], and practiced it
more diligently, and without the glamour. She was less a per-
son than an opening of Kosmic compassion—unrelenting,
fiercely devoted, frighteningly dedicated.
I, anyway, appreciated them both very much, for quite
different reasons.
“Happiness is a warm nun.”

Such opinions, sadly, are again exactly par for the course with
Wilber, in his consistent vouching for other people’s high degrees of
enlightenment (“opening of Kosmic kompassion-with-a-‘k,’” etc.).
For here too he obviously, if utterly wrongly, considers himself to be
in a position to intuitively and intelligently separate the reality from
the PR, even without having minimally familiarized himself with the
long-extant, relevant research materials.
Likewise for his friend, Dr. Roger Walsh (1999):
The few hours I spent with Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama
continue to inspire me years later, while films of them have in-
spired people around the world. Such is the power of those
who devote their lives to awakening and service.
Or, rather, “such is the power” of those with good public rela-
tions machines and the ability to bury their indiscretions and preju-
dices. For, they shall be taken as saints and gods, even in the midst of
cruel homophobia, bizarre sexual hang-ups, association with known
criminals and the receiving of stolen goods. (Mother Teresa accepted
over a million dollars in donations from Savings-and-Loan fraudster
Charles Keating, and wrote a naïve letter in his defense during his
trial. Following his conviction and imprisonment, the deputy district
attorney of Los Angeles County contacted Teresa, encouraging her to
return those “stolen” funds. He received no reply from the “great
saint” [Chatterjee, 2003].)
Anyway, one might even begin to sympathize with such perspec-

tives as Bhagavati’s, above, in the face of nonsense such as Brooke’s
(1999) position. For there, he repeatedly expressed the desire to “out”
(his word) the “wrangling bitch” and “vain effete peacock” (his
phrases) Sai Baba. He also evinced a predictably “Christian” attitude
toward female gurus in general:
I had never met [Hilda Charlton] ... and had my own personal
barriers and suspicions about women gurus. It just wasn’t my
style.
Gender-based “suspicions,” however, cannot be reduced to mere

matters of “style,” even in the case of complete flakes such as Charl-
ton. Nor can such dismal attitudes—whether coming from male born-
again Christians or in reverse from celebrated contemporary female
yogis—be viewed as a valid antidote toward the problems which per-
vade the spiritual marketplace, or even the saner world in general.
We should not, therefore, attempt to split the power/sexual/psy-
chological issues underlying these poor reported behaviors along
male/female or patriarchal/matriarchal lines, as is often done. Indeed,
should one even be tempted to do so, one should instead consider
Janja Lalich’s experiences in a “soul-crushing” political “cult”
founded by thirteen feminist Marxist-Leninists. Eleven of those foun-
ders “self-identified as radical lesbians.” (“Marxist-Lesbianists”?)
And yet, even under their “nurturing, tolerant, egalitarian” rule:
A well-respected doctor and party theoretician in his fifties

said he was so tired he prayed daily for a heart attack to give
him some release. A number of others said they secretly
wished they would get killed in a car accident because they
couldn’t think of any other way of getting out (in Langone,
1995).
You’re thinking of dabbling in something like paganism to slake

your spiritual thirst, on the wishful supposition that it might be any
less founded on lies, sexism, and unapologetic misrepresentations
than is any other religion or form of spirituality? Please first read
Charlotte Allen’s delightful (2001) article, “The Scholars and the
Goddess”:
In all probability, not a single element of the Wiccan story [of

its own origins] is true. The evidence is overwhelming that
Wicca is a distinctly new religion, a 1950s concoction influ-
enced by such things as Masonic ritual and a late-nineteenth-
century fascination with the esoteric and the occult, and that
various assumptions informing the Wiccan view of history are
deeply flawed.
Indeed, as Allen further notes, the idea—central to Wiccan belief

—that any ancient civilization, anywhere, ever worshiped a single,
archetypal goddess, is wholly rejected by contemporary scholars, on
the basis of both written records and archeology. (Cf. Cynthia Eller’s
[2003] refreshingly insightful and devastating The Myth of Matriar-
chal Prehistory.)
Likewise for the purported superiorities of past Native American
societies, or the like, to “fragmented, patriarchal, European” ones:
The Mayas, whose cities were completely unfortified, were

long thought to be “an unusually gentle, peaceful people living
in a relatively benign theocracy.” But as the Mayan writing
system began to be deciphered and as new excavations were
undertaken, a different picture emerged. Archaeologists found
depictions of severed heads and bound captives under public
buildings. As archaeologist Arthur Demarest concludes on the
basis of this new evidence, “the Maya were one of the most
violent state-level societies in the New World” (Eller, 2003).
Indeed, the Mayas may have even been comparable to the

“peace-loving” (and yet child-torturing) theocracy—which survived
into the mid-twentieth century—maintained under the equally “holy
and compassionate” native Buddhist lamas of Tibet.
All of which, for respected sagely goose and gander alike, only
goes to reinforce the wise observation that “a saint [or a fanciful my-
thology, or a “Golden Age” culture] is what remains when a person’s
sins have been forgotten.” Or, if not duly forgotten, at least prema-
turely buried by close disciples, as by the sage himself/herself—all of
them having no small interest in presenting the best possible public
face, for their own welfare in power and glory.
***
We have earlier touched on the idea of spiritual incest, in terms of

sexual relations usually (but not always) initiated by the guru-figure
with his (or her) trusting disciples. The respected theoreticians in the
higher branches of psychology and consciousness studies may still be
grappling with how to explain away such life-destroying “mistakes”
on the part of their “enlightened” heroes—practitioners of “idiot spiri-
tuality.” By contrast, others with far less commitment to the field, but
far more insight, had already discerned the relevant dynamics and
appropriate restrictions over a decade and a half ago:
The power of the pastor over the congregant is tremendously

enhanced by his authority, if he wishes to exercise it, to de-
scribe to a woman her status with God. A sexually abusive
clergyman can easily exploit this authority by telling a woman
that her sexual involvement is part of a divinely ordained plan.
Even sophisticated women can have difficulty resisting this ar-
gument if they are devoted to the religious vision that the cler-
gyman represents.
[So-called religious] cults in which the guru or spiritual
leader has sexual relationships with many of his female con-
gregants are more blatant examples of this phenomenon (Rut-
ter, 1989).
Rutter continues:
The [related] issue of sexual relationships between professors

and students draws attention because of their frequency, which
[high frequency] can be partially [italics added] attributed to a
traditional absence of a clearly demarcated forbidden zone
[where sexual activities are not allowed] on the college cam-
pus. People who argue against such prohibitions usually claim
that the women involved are consenting adults and that there is
no duty to protect them....
All of these arguments ignore important social and psy-
chological realities. The social dynamic still places the power
in the hands of the teacher or professor. The psychological dy-
namic is based on the underlying reality of continuing depend-
ency issues, which must be taken into account in assessing the
ethics of sexual relationships between female college and
graduate students and their professors. Recently, some univer-
sities have begun articulating clear policies against faculty-

student intimacies that do take the unequal power dynamics
into consideration.
Chapter 7 of Singer and Lalich’s (1996) Crazy Therapies covers

similar topics to the above:
Sex with a therapist or counselor [or guru] is not okay and is

not going to benefit the client [or disciple]. If anything ... it
will cause new problems and exacerbate previous ones.
Gurus, like fathers, are in a context that gives them enormous

power because of their disciples’ needs, trust, and dependency.
One reason incest is a betrayal of trust is what a daughter
needs from her father is a sense of self-worth not specifically
linked to her sexuality. Sex with the guru is similarly incestu-
ous because a guru ostensibly functions as a spiritual father to
whom one’s growth is entrusted. Having sex with a parental
figure reinforces using sex for power. This is not what young
women (or men) need for their development. When the guru
drops them, which eventually he does, feelings of shame and
betrayal usually result that leave deep scars (Kramer and Al-
stad, 1993).
Note that none of the above ideas are puritanical, shadow-

projecting or prudish. (In the words of the One-Taste realized Drukpa
Kunley, hero to the Dalai Lama: “You like religion and I like cunt.
May both of us be happy!”) They are, rather, simply a minimal appli-
cation of “real compassion” (as opposed to “idiot tolerance”) for the
well-being of others, being directed in the spiritual world against the
power-tripping and hypocrisy of radically defective individuals who
make themselves out to be gods.
When people do not have a clear idea of harm—and it is very

hard to talk about sex and get it right—they accuse others of
being Puritans. This is going on all over Buddhism today (Lew
Richmond, in [Downing, 2001]).
As if to prove Richmond’s point, the tantric initiate John Blofeld

(1970) gave a fallacious defense which could have been applied to the
vast majority of our world’s guru-figures:
[A]dvanced adepts are permitted to do what seems good to

them, regardless of the normal [e.g., social] rules of conduct.
To consider abiding by the rules as necessarily good or trans-
gressing them as necessarily evil would be to tie themselves
down with the dualism they have set out to transcend....
Sordid people judge others by their own standards, read-
ing crude motives into every sort of action. Hypocrites will be
likely to see their own vice in every unconventional act of a
man sincerely seeking spiritual advancement. It is hard to con-
vince them that others may act from lofty motives. A true
adept, however, will not be put out by misguided criticism.
Ah, but to what extent, if any, have our world’s guru-figures ever
really acted from “lofty motives”? And might not any associated “hy-
pocrisy” perhaps apply more to the teachers themselves than to their
“puritanical” critics?
Further consider the twenty-five virgin girls who surely had their
lives messed up by one deluded old man, Upasani Baba, regardless of
what component of their marriage may have been only symbolic or
spiritual. (For the young girls sleeping with Mahatma Gandhi, too, it
was merely a “spiritual” arrangement. Yet, had his lust ever risen to
the fore, the likely outcome would have been rape. How well would
you sleep, with that lurking over your shoulder?)
That same Baba was again convinced that he could distinguish
the “Avatar for this age” from the mass of spiritual seekers, which
avatar just happened, by coincidence, to be one of his own disciples.
(“What are the odds?”) That is indeed “sordid,” but not in any way
which the apologetic Blofeld would ever have imagined. If one
wishes to see the effects of “traditional agrarian” society on allegedly
constraining what guru-figures are allowed to get away with, one
need look no further than celebrated “spiritual discipline” like that.
To state the obvious, again: Any set of “rigid constraints” which
grants a greater degree of latitude in allowable behavior to its god-
figures than does Western society’s own healthy permissiveness
(among consenting adults, here) would, in practice, create an even
more unconstrained society for those so fortunate as to be the “kings”
of it. Indeed, in the same West where a “lack of social constraint” is

regularly blamed for the excesses of its “crazy wisdom” practitioners:
[Few] crazy-wisdom masters today are afforded the privilege

of making use of their full bag of tricks. They are well aware
that a single lawsuit brought against them ... could result in
their losing the opportunity to continue their teaching function
(Caplan, 2002).
Since those lawsuits arise predominantly from alleged sexual

abuses (cf. Swami Rama), one cannot have it both ways. That is, one
is welcome to state, with Ram Dass (in Caplan, 2002), that previously
“impeccable” gurus fall from their lofty ideals because of the greater
freedoms and promiscuity (in alcohol, drugs and sex) in the West.
One would be hopelessly wrong—cf. Dass’ own “seventeen-year-old
jock,” Neem Karoli Baba—but one is free to close one’s eyes and
propose that. Having stated it, however, one cannot then turn around
and assert that “crazy wisdom” is practiced with more freedom in the
East, where “the guru-principle is understood,” and lawsuits need not
be so feared should “Da Shit hit Da Fan”!
Note further that while even educational institutions have ac-
knowledged the existence of relevant psychological dynamics be-
tween teachers and students, from which the students need to be pro-
tected, things are much worse for guru-figures and disciples. For, a
student receiving unwanted attention from a professor or graduate
supervisor might, at least in theory (i.e., notwithstanding “old boys’
networks” and the like), transfer to another class/supervisor, or go
“over the prof’s head” to the dean, etc. There are no such courts of
appeal, however, for wronged disciples. Rather, there is merely the
fear that in saying “No” to anything that the guru-figure asks of you,
you are being disobedient and egoic, and thus retarding your own
spiritual growth. Further, to break with the guru at any stage of that
may, one believes, cast one into “Vajra hell,” or result in one “wan-
dering the Earth for incarnations” before being given another chance
at enlightenment, should you “waste” this one.
More obviously, no mere professor, graduate supervisor or em-
ployer could believably suggest that sleeping with him (or her) is part
of a “divinely ordained plan.” Guru-figures, on the other hand, can
and do routinely advance exactly that idea. Thus, whatever constraints
may be placed on secular classes should apply even more to guru-

figures. For, in between the “voice of God” speaking through them,
the constraints to obey, and the lack of any court of appeal, the power
imbalance is far greater in the spiritual world than in the academic.
Sex between the father-figure guru and his (or her) disciples is
again widely recognized as being of a comparable psychological
status to incest or child abuse. One need not be stuck in any “puritani-
cal” worldview, then, in order to feel the need to object to such activi-
ties, whether they are occurring in spiritual or in secular contexts. Nor
can proponents of “idiot tolerance” for the same (alleged, spiritual)
abuse safely hide behind the idea that such objections arise merely
from followers wanting their sages to be “dead from the neck down.”
Encouragingly, the California Yoga Teachers Association Code
of Conduct (Lasater, 1995) admirably spelled out the minimal rele-
vant constraints on the behavior of its members a decade ago, even
though concerning itself only with imperfect teachers and their stu-
dents, not “divine, infallible” gurus and their disciples. There, they
recognized that “all forms of sexual behavior or harassment with stu-
dents are unethical, even when a student invites or consents to such
behavior or involvement.” They further instructed:
We do not make public ... statement[s] implying unusual,

unique or one-of-a-kind abilities, including misrepresentation
through sensationalism, exaggeration or superficiality.
One wishes that the frequently “one-of-a-kind” and “best,” “en-

lightened avatars” in the world could see things as clearly—i.e., with
such elementary, common-sense psychology and integrity—as its
“unenlightened, mere mortal” teachers have. There would be far less
garbage (“and the goddess”) littering the long and winding spiritual
road.
***
Leaving a [so-called] cult is like experiencing a death of a

loved one. There is a grieving process which will take time.
Time to process the feelings of confusion, loss, guilt, disillu-
sionment, anger, and lack of trust engendered (Bailey and Bai-
ley, 2003).
For first-hand accounts as to the difficulties involved in disentangling

oneself from spiritual and emotional commitments to enlightenment
at the feet of any “great sage,” plus personal descriptions of the power
games and manipulation which are alleged to occur within the ashram
environment, I have found the following books to be excellent:
• Michael Downing (2001), Shoes Outside the Door—San

Francisco Zen Center, Richard Baker (this book is worth
reading for the keen wit alone)
• Stephen Butterfield (1994), The Double Mirror—Chögyam
Trungpa
• Peter Marin (1995), “Spiritual Obedience,” in Freedom & Its
Discontents—Chögyam Trungpa
• Satya Bharti Franklin (1992), The Promise of Paradise—Raj-
neesh
• Hugh Milne (1986), Bhagwan: The God That Failed—
Rajneesh
• Kate Strelley (1987), The Ultimate Game—Rajneesh
• Andre van der Braak (2003), Enlightenment Blues—Andrew
Cohen
• Luna Tarlo (1997), The Mother of God—Andrew Cohen
• Martha Sherrill (2000), The Buddha from Brooklyn—
Jetsunma
• Barbara and Betty Underwood (1979), Hostage to Heaven—
the Moonies
• Deborah Layton (1998), Seductive Poison—Jim Jones
• John Hubner and Lindsey Gruson (1990), Monkey on a Stick
—the Hare Krishnas, exposed as the reportedly murderous,
drug-running, wife-beating, child-molesting apocalyptic
“cult” we were always reflexively warned to avoid. Yet, we
chose instead to liberally tolerate and defend them as an “al-
ternative religion,” which should not be discriminated against
simply for being “different.”
“Live and let live,” right?
Compare:
When I first started to speak out about [alleged] cults

approximately ten years ago [i.e., around 1982], I
was one of an extremely small group of lawyers who
were willing to address [so-called] cultic groups’
broad range of challenges to individual freedom and
personal liberty. The podium had in fact been largely
forfeited to a strident, well-organized clique of “civil
libertarian” experts who discoursed at length upon
the inviolability of the First Amendment and the
rights, vulnerabilities, and vitality of so-called new
religious movements (Herbert Rosedale, in [Langone,
1995])
• Amy Wallace (2003), Sorcerer’s Apprentice—Carlos Casta-

neda, another “world’s savior,” who was every bit the tragi-
cally equal fool in cruelly disciplining his followers as any of
the other “Rude Boys” we have seen herein have been. The
details Wallace gives of an insane community founded on a
“skillful means” of reported lies and unspoken, rigid rules are
nearly enough to cause one to lose one’s faith in our sad, con-
forming, manipulative, power-hungry species. Nor did Casta-
neda’s own famous writings featuring the purported Yaqui
sorcerer Don Juan fare any better in the light of truth:
As sociologist Marcello Truzzi was the first to say,

Castaneda’s books were the greatest hoax since the
Piltdown Man (Gardner, 1999)
Anyone who has ever lived in an ashram/monastery environ-

ment, and recovered enough from that to see how much less “evil” the
“real world” is, will find numerous significant points of contact in all
of the above first-hand accounts—including Underwood’s days with
the Moonies, and Layton’s gripping story of her narrow escape from
Jonestown. For, as we have seen, the techniques used to keep resi-
dents in line and loyally “living in fear” of what will happen to their
bodies or souls should they leave are constant across all paths. That is
so, regardless of the specific beliefs involved in each case.
Butterfield went into his experiences under Trungpa with the

most skeptical attitude of the above thirteen. He thus seems to have
suffered the least in the inevitable realization that a lot of what he was
being fed there was “excrement and urine,” as it were. There is a les-
son in there somewhere.
The total insanity underlying the use of “skillful means” of
teaching, and the easy descent of followers into a chilling mob men-
tality, further come across frighteningly in Sherrill’s book. Selected
chapters from that text are available online, at Sherrill (2000a). The
“Great Blessing” chapter there is an especially enlightening/sickening
documentation of the madness too often allegedly perpetrated in the
name of “purifying compassion.” (For the difference between reality
and hagiography, compare that exposé against the chapter on Jetsun-
ma in Mackenzie’s [1995] Reborn in the West. And then apply the
same demythologizing proportionately to each of the other tulkus
covered by Mackenzie.) That “purifying compassion” came, again,
from a tulku whose spiritual greatness was formally recognized in the
mid-’80s by Wilber’s own Penor Rinpoche.
Also coming across clearly there are the jaw-dropping rationali-
zations created by disciples, in absurdly viewing such alleged violent
abuses as being for their own benefit. That occurs within the context
of ridiculously skewed ideas about merit and karma—including tulkus
reincarnating as houses, wooden bridges, and equally wooden actors.
Also, one cannot help but note the laughably superstitious interpreta-
tions of natural phenomena, and an equally hideous, “Cathoholic”-
like insistence on the confession of any broken vows to one’s superi-
ors. For, the consequence of not confessing is that such breaks remain
allegedly forever unmendable. That is, they supposedly create obsta-
cles and produce more suffering “for countless sentient beings” by
one’s having failed to come forth quickly and voluntarily to admit
them.
In any case, a primary idea to glean from all of the above-listed
book-length testimonials is that, if you’ve once decided to leave a
spiritual community, follow through on it, and don’t ever go back,
even if the community begs you to stay or to return. (Corollary: leav-
ing in the middle of the night, without saying “goodbye,” gives them
less chance to talk you out of that.) Things won’t get better by staying
longer, and the nonsense which caused you to decide to leave in the
first place will only get worse. None of those problems, further, are
ever simply “tests sent by your guru” to see how loyal you are, re-
gardless of what the guru himself or his loyal disciples may try to tell
you.
Leaving such a community after any meaningful length of stay
of course means being ostracized by the remaining members, and be-
ing regarded as having left for “not being able to take” the discipline
in that relationship. Or, being the subject of far worse allegations
and/or reported violence. That, however, is a small price to pay for
one’s freedom and (literally) one’s sanity.
Indeed, as to the treatment which one may expect upon leaving
the average “divine guru”: Andrew Harvey (2000) and his partner
broke with and publicly repudiated Mother Meera—shortly after hav-
ing declared her to be “the avatar who would save the world”
(Blacker, 1996). They then claim to have encountered the following
set of horrors:
A vicious, callous, and sophisticated system was set up by a

group of ex-“close friends,” that included anonymous letters,
death threats for nearly a year, horrible telephone harassment,
visits to New York publishers to discredit Eryk’s and my work,
attempts to have me thrown out of my job in San Francisco, re-
lentless public and private calumny—the complete cocktail, in
fact, of [so-called] cult violence, demonization, and attempted
destruction....
I know of many cases of terrible abuse where ex-disciples
of this or that “master” are too terrified to speak out.
Former members of Rajneesh’s (Milne [1986]; Franklin [1992])

and Muktananda’s (Harris, 1994) ashrams, to name but two more,
have claimed to fear for their safety in comparable situations.
Interestingly, Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati (Joya) apparently regards
Andrew Harvey’s claims of harassment and homophobia against
mother Meera as being “baloney.” She also, however, has reportedly
recently defended Trungpa and Rajneesh, and spoken highly of Muk-
tananda (Bostock, 1998). Simultaneously, she has evidently “for-
given” Ram Dass—the “fighting puppy” at her regal, parading “ele-
phant feet”—for speaking out against her in the ’70s. Again, the
www.kashiashram.com website offers a valuable corrective to her
public face and to any claims that she is doing “selfless, compassion-
ate” work.
Comparably disturbing details as to the alleged treatment of ex-
members by Adi Da’s community are available online at Jewel
(1999). A good summary of his reported behaviors in general can be
found online at ThisTruth (2001).
See also the preface to Wakefield (1991) for her claimed fright-
ening experiences, including alleged death threats, after having left
Scientology. Plus, Chapter 9 of Wakefield (1996), and the epilogue of
Malko (1970), for comparable allegations.
And yet, even after all that, the Muktananda-quoting Caplan, as
recently as 2001, could still write:
There is the occasional Jim Jones, Charles Manson, or Mar-

shall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate) who comes into the spiritual
scene and presents a physical danger to the very lives of the
students whom they claim to be saving. But these instances are
negligible in comparison to the majority of spiritual schools
and teachers, who present no danger of physical harm to their
students.
The hard data, however, available for over twenty years by now,
argues exactly the opposite. For, as Conway and Siegelman reported
in 1982, based on a survey of over four hundred former “cult” mem-
bers from forty-eight different groups:
Incidences of physical punishment, reported by approximately

one in five respondents, included beatings, starvation, physical
bondage, cold showers and dousings and long hours of humili-
ating and degrading labor.
Nor were those the only alleged negative effects to be disclosed

by Conway and Siegelman’s study. Rather, nearly 20% of their re-
spondents battled long-term health problems, while two in every three
faced lasting emotional difficulties. Further, 14% claimed to have
suffered from psychiatric delusions (e.g., hallucinations) for up to
eight years after breaking away from their respective organizations.
Also, more than one out of every five former members in the survey
had suicidal or other self-destructive feelings during the rehabilitation
period after leaving—a time which averaged more than sixteen months.
Interestingly, beyond the first three to six months, the impact of

“cult ritual” and indoctrination did not correlate with the difficulties
faced by the member after leaving the group. That is, “most of the
damage appears to be done in the first few months” of (esp. residen-
tial) membership.
***
The “fury of a savior scorned” is generally not limited to former

members of his “world-saving” group, but extends even to those third
parties who dare to speak in too much unpleasant detail about our
world’s “spiritual” organizations. The aforementioned late “cult psy-
chology” expert Margaret Singer (2003) apparently found that out for
herself the hard way:
Since the first edition of [Cults in Our Midst] came out, vari-
ous [so-called] cults have sent people to ring the doorbell of
my home at all hours of the night, often leaving menacing
notes in my mailbox, then scampering away in the dark like
mischievous kids on a Halloween night....
In addition to this childish level of harassment, a lawsuit
was brought against me and the book ... which I am sure was
designed only to intimidate and to attempt to silence me and
my work. The litigation was also, I believe, an attempt to dis-
suade my academic and clinical colleagues from publishing
similar research and analysis of [so-called] cults in the United
States and from testifying against [so-called] cults, as I do, in
the many current criminal and civil court cases under way be-
tween [alleged] cults and their former victims.
Steven Hassan (2000) reported his own comparable experiences:
When Combatting Cult Mind Control was first published in

1988, I became one of the most visible targets of [so-called]
cult disinformation campaigns. There are [alleged] cult leaders
who lecture their members on the evils of speaking with me
and even reading the book. Scientology has a “Dead Agent
Pack” about me. This folder contains material designed to as-
sassinate my character—to “neutralize” me in members’ minds
as a respected person. Countless times, I’ve been threatened
with lawsuits and have even received death threats from [al-
leged] cult members. Several groups, such as the Moonies, tell
their members that I am Satan’s agent.
For the past twenty years, [David] Lane’s books and articles
exposing the [alleged] plagiarisms, lies, inconsistencies and
scandals of a number of new religious movements have raised
a fury among true believers. Members of various [alleged]
cults have [reportedly] made death threats, written him letters
with skeletons on them, broken into his apartment, threatened
lawsuits, and generally harassed him....
“They sent letters about me claiming I was the negative
force, that I was predicted from the beginning of mankind”
[says Lane] (Bellamy, 1995).
It was easy for Theosophists to conclude that anyone who dis-

agreed with them, however well intentioned, was working in
the service of the Dark Forces (Washington, 1995).
(For the disillusioning story of the Sufi “master” Idries Shah—

“the West’s leading exponent of Sufism” [Hall, 1975]—see the “Con-
clusion” chapter of the same excellent and wide-ranging [1995] book
by Peter Washington: Madame Blavatsky’s Baboon. Gurdjieff, daftly
described by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright as being “the greatest
man in the world,” appears throughout, as well as in Evans’ witty
[1973] Cults of Unreason. Washington’s Chapter 21 further covers
the epileptic Elizabeth Clare Prophet and her apocalyptic Church
Universal ‘n’ Triumphant—which, contrary to the juicy spirit of its
near-acronym, reportedly limits sex to “not more than thirty minutes,
twice a week” for its members. Ross [2004c] has materials online re-
garding the same channel-happy group.)
As has been noted previously, it would be inconsistent for SRF
to not view the present author as being, like the above “Dark Forces,”
quite literally a deluded tool of Maya—the satanic cosmic delusive
force, or devil.
I’m baaad.
Chapter 9 of Singer’s above-mentioned (2003) book contains
many examples of the reported litigious, legal and illegal tactics util-
ized by our world’s “truth-seeking” spiritual organizations to prevent
the (alleged) uncomplimentary aspects of their activities from being

publicized.
Singer herself unfortunately downplayed the real and legitimate
search for Truth in her list of reasons why people join and remain in
spiritual communities. Instead, she focused on those joiners simply
being vulnerable to proselytizing in “looking for meaning” after a
personal loss, depression, loneliness or insecurity, etc. For my own
part, however, I have lived that “seeker myth,” with no proselytizing
whatsoever on the part of any of Yogananda’s followers. I therefore
cannot take Singer’s broad debunking of that principle seriously. Nor
does one encounter anything in the first-person accounts of Butter-
field, van der Braak, Milne, Franklin or Strelley which would match
Singer’s assertion of “active, sophisticated and unrelenting proselytiz-
ing” on the part of the relevant organizations (re: Trungpa, Cohen and
Rajneesh). The Gurdjieff Society and his eponymous Institute like-
wise “never advertise and never recruit” (Washington, 1995).
The same is true even of Adi Da’s group, at least with regard to
non-celebrities: “[S]o far as I know, the community has never gone in
for active recruiting, preferring to let people be drawn by Da Free
John’s writings” (Lowe, 1996). Layton’s experiences in being pulled
into the People’s Temple, however, did include flattering attention/
pressure from Jones himself. Underwood’s (1979) and Hassan’s
(1990) reported experiences in becoming involved with the Moonies
likewise fit much more closely with Singer’s assertions.
In any case, for those nontraditional organizations which do ac-
tively recruit, university campuses remain the primary area of focus:
University students are often vulnerable recruitment targets for

potentially harmful groups (Smith, 2004).
College campuses are the chief recruiting centers of most [al-

leged] destructive cults, and virtually every college campus in
the country has been and continues to be visited by these or-
ganizations....
At the University of California—Berkeley, for example, it
is estimated that at least two hundred different religious sects
on and off-campus are recruiting from the 30,000-student
campus (in Rudin, 1996).
In a survey done in 1980 by Zimbardo of more than one thou-

sand high school students in the San Francisco Bay area 54%
reported a [so-called] cult had attempted to recruit them and
40% said they had experienced multiple attempts (Ross,
2002b).
Indeed, in one survey (Singer, 2003) it was found that 43% of

former “cult” members were students (in high school or college) at
the time when they became involved with their respective organiza-
tions. Further, of those students, 38% dropped out of school after
joining their groups.
Some ... observers echo Richard Delgado’s call for an inten-

sive public education campaign about the [so-called] cults....
Dr. Lester Rosenthal ... believes ninth, tenth, and eleventh
graders should be required to take courses in school on how
the [so-called] cults recruit and operate (Rudin and Rudin,
1980).
Beyond the sorely needed education of young people in particu-

lar, the following reasonable suggestions have also been made:
Federal funds should be appropriated for research and treat-

ment of [so-called] mind control victims (Hassan, 1990).
[T]he government might launch a campaign to raise awareness

about the dangers of [so-called] cults, just as it has done for
smoking, seat belts, and drunk driving (Hassan, 2000).
Professor Richard Delgado asserts that the legal status of [al-

leged] religious cults should be analyzed within the context of
the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution—
which forbids slavery—rather than within the First Amend-
ment alone. He believes the conditions of some [so-called] cult
members do in fact constitute a state of slavery (Rudin and
Rudin, 1980).
U.S. courts have repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment

provides only unqualified freedom of religious belief, not
unlimited freedom to practice those beliefs in ways that may
violate existing laws or pose a threat to the health and safety of

individuals or society (Conway and Siegelman, 1982).
The means of getting into the organization may differ between

non-proselytizing “true sanghas” and recruiting-based nontraditional
organizations. Still, once one is inside, working long hours for mini-
mal wages, in a “state of slavery” to a master whose orders you can-
not disobey, leaving is just as difficult. That is true whether departing
from the oppressive environment means “falling into Satan’s power,”
being “pursued by disasters,” or simply risking showing oneself to be
a “bad disciple”—a weakling who “can’t take the heat.”
***
In my own case, after leaving Hidden Valley, I happened to get in

touch with the monk (from a different order) who had taken over the
position and workspace which I had vacated there. I then attempted to
inform him as to the problems with that organization, as reported in
Russell (1999), for example.
His response?
“If anything were going really wrong, Yogananda would step in
and intervene. Until then, the Master was probably just looking down
and laughing at the foibles of his disciples. In the meantime, we
should just focus on changing ourselves, and not worry about things
like that.” Or words to that effect.
Oy vey. With “wisdom” like that, one does not need ignorance.
With “compassion” like that, one does not need callousness. For, at
what point in the slow descent into insanity of any of our world’s
guru-figures and organizations did God or the relevant line of “as-
cended, omniscient” Masters ever “step in” to stop alleged pedophilia,
spiritual incest, intense psychological and physical abuse, or worse?
When, even, did Jesus ever step in to stop the sodomizing of altar
boys in the Catholic Church? And other guru-figures will then have
more interest in, or ability to stop, abuses done in their name? And if
they do not step in, “everything is going as it should, for your own
benefit,” so “bend over, here it comes”?
That I was apparently poisoned and/or deliberately overdrug-

ged [in Rajneesh’s ashram] was the furthest thing from my
mind....
I took everything that happened at face value. The only
ulterior motives I looked for were spiritual.... Everything was
happening the way it should. It always did (Franklin, 1992).
[T]o be a disciple [of Rajneesh] you had to believe that every-

thing that happened was literally or mystically the guru’s do-
ing. If something appeared to be wrong or unjust or foolish,
that was your myopia; it was otherwise in the guru’s encom-
passing vision (Fitzgerald, 1986).
That attitude, of course, was nothing peculiar or pathological to

Rajneesh, but is rather the essence of the guru-disciple relationship, in
agrarian India and Tibet as in the postmodern West.
Yet, as the humorist Al Franken (1996), displaying far more in-
sight than one is used to encountering in these matters, reasonably
summarized the real-world situation:
If God can allow genocides to occur on a more or less regular

basis, if God can stand by while famine ravages large parts of
the Third World, if God can permit Sonny Bono to sit on the
House Judiciary Committee, why should we figure He’s going
to get off His Butt to stop Union Carbide from leaking poly-
chlorinated biphenyls into the groundwater underneath Pis-
cataway, New Jersey?
You think that your “divinely loving, omniscient” guru-figure is

watching over you, and “everything is always working out as it
should, for your own greatest good”? Tell that to Lisa McPherson.
Oh, you can’t: She’s dead.
***
We cannot take refuge in the idea that any of the individuals dis-
cussed herein are simply “false teachers,” and that genuinely enlight-
ened individuals would not behave so poorly. Nor is the problem
simply with “naïve Westerners” following guru-figures who would
not be taken seriously in the “spiritual East,” as is sometimes wrongly
suggested. For, if there is such a thing as a “genuine guru,” who

would ever have doubted that Vivekananda, Trungpa, Muktananda or
Yogananda would qualify as such? These are not the worst of gurus,
they are rather among the widely recognized best!
Ramakrishna, likewise, was ostensibly one of
the few indubitable Indian saints and sages amidst the veritable
plague of so-called swamis, gurus, “enlightened masters,” ma-
harishis, “bhagvans” [sic] and the like of recent times (Old-
meadow, 2004).
After all that we have seen, then, it is easy to sympathize with

the perspective of the insightful and democratic 1984 author, George
Orwell (1980):
Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved in-
nocent.
The bottom line with each of these figures is thus not whether
one or another of their visions may have been real or imagined. Nor is
it whether their actual degree of enlightenment is even one-tenth of
what they and their loyal disciples claim it to be. (It is not.) Nor can
our concerns be allayed by the suggestion that any reticence in ap-
proaching one or another of these figures is based merely in “fear of
ego-annihilation” or in a “misunderstanding of the nature of obedi-
ence” to the guru. Nor is the problem with “projection/transference
onto the perfect father/mother figure,” or “intolerance for human im-
perfections” in evaluating the teacher’s character and behavior.
(Again, none of those issues were present in Zimbardo’s prison study.
Yet, he still could not avoid creating a toxic environment which ex-
actly parallels ashramic society.)
Nor need we even worry about which of these organizations
should be designated as a (prepersonal or transpersonal) “cult,” or
whether the alarming/alarmist term “brainwashing” should be used to
describe any of their means of control. (Anyone who wishes to intel-
ligently compare the tactics reportedly utilized by our world’s osten-
sibly “safe” guru-figures and spiritual communities, against those in
recognized “problematic” environments, however, will find many
significant points of correspondence. For that, Denise Winn’s [2000]
The Manipulated Mind and Len Oakes’ [1997] Prophetic Charisma

are excellent.)
Rather, the root question to ask with regard to even these “best”
figures is simply:
Would you trust your mental and physical health to any of them?
***
“Your spiritual teacher’s an Enlightened Master? Join the club,

buddy.”
Maharshi. Trungpa. Muktananda. Rama. Gurumayi. Chinmoy.
Jetsunma. Andrew Cohen. Werner Erhard.
“Your spiritual teacher’s an avatar? Impressive.”

Vivekananda. Sivananda. Aurobindo. The Dalai Lama. Babaji.
Lahiri Mahasaya. Sri Yukteswar. Yogananda. Ramakrishna’s wife.
Aurobindo’s Mother. Ananda Moyi Ma. Mother Meera. Ma Jaya Sati
Bhagavati. L. Ron Hubbard.
“Your spiritual teacher’s the Avatar (Messiah, Teacher, etc.)?

Hey, so’s mine!”
Ramakrishna. Jiddu Krishnamurti. Meher Baba. Yogi Bhajan.
Satya Sai Baba. Da Avatar. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Carlos Casta-
neda. Sun Myung Moon. David Koresh. Jim Jones. Charles Manson.
Jesus Christ.
“Guru, schmuru.”
CHAPTER XXX
MAKE IT
BETTER
Nothing was true of all that she had believed, but the falsest
thing of all was what she had mistaken for revealed truth.
—François Mauriac, Maltaverne
WHERE THEN DOES ALL OF THIS leave spirituality and enlightenment?

First, one of Yogi Bhajan’s former followers has rightly noted,
of that guru’s restrictive community environment:
Certainly all those brainwashing hours of chanting and medita-

tion hadn’t been a worse way to spend my time than watching
TV (K. Khalsa, 1994).
Likewise, the fact that most ashrams provide only vegetarian

food need not be brought up with any raised eyebrows. The present
author, for one, has been vegetarian since age twenty. (See
www.newveg.av.org, www.vegdining.com, www.foodrevolution.org,
www.veg.ca, Lane [1993] and John Robbins’ [1987] Diet for a New
America.) That has included several years of adhering to a strict ve-
gan (no eggs or dairy) diet.
Famous vegetarian rockers, interestingly, include many of the
most creative and virile stars in the music world: Mick Jagger, David
Bowie, Peter Gabriel and his former lover Sinead “the Antipope”
504
MAKE IT BETTER 505
O’Connor, Kate “Wuthering Heights” Bush, Elvis Costello, Bob Dy-

lan, Bob Marley, Don “American Pie” McLean, Natalie Merchant,
Stevie Nicks and Sarah McLachlan. Also, Tom Scholz—the 4.8 GPA
M.I.T. Engineering graduate, mastermind guitarist/songwriter behind
the group Boston—“guitar god” Jeff Beck, Tom Petty, Ozzy Os-
bourne, Paul McCartney, George Harrison ... Ringo ... and, ironically,
Meatloaf.
One may choose to focus on things like “hard-working disciples
subsisting on [allegedly inadequate] vegetarian diets” or the absence
of television as if they were part of the destructive “weirdness” of any
“cult-like” situation. That, however, only dilutes the rest of one’s ob-
jections to the real problems with the world’s spiritual paths. (Full
disclosure: By choice, I have no TV, either.)
The supposed differences between traditional and nontraditional
religions are, further, again far less marked than one might like to be-
lieve:
[T]he community that is spontaneously forming around An-

drew [Cohen] in the midst of this modern, materialistic society
so closely resembles the followings of the great Masters of an-
cient times (said complimentarily in [Cohen, 1992]).
No doubt that assertion was true, in celebrating Cohen’s re-

enacting of the countless, more notable guru-roles played before his
own easily forgettable part in world history. But it is also valid in
terms of reading backwards from the reported problems within and
around Cohen to ascribe similar dysfunctionalities to earlier, archaic
communities:
[M]uch of the literature on Christianity in its first century of

existence depicts the early Christians in totalistic and authori-
tarian terms (Robbins and Anthony, 1982).
Amazingly, Anthony and Robbins use that as an argument in fa-

vor of allowing our world’s authoritarian “god-men” to operate un-
checked. The Catholic Church has turned out so well, after all....
***
Given a dozen or more disciples and a guru-figure, the psychological

dynamics inherent in the situation renders it entirely irrelevant
whether the “one true/best guru” they are devotedly following is Je-
sus, Rajneesh or Da Savior, etc. Nor would the organizations created
around those various gurus be particularly distinguishable after sev-
eral centuries or millennia of cultural assimilation. Further, like it or
not, what Adi Da’s disciples believe of him, or what Cohen’s follow-
ers accept of his claimed “perfection” and salvific potential, or what I
once believed of Yogananda, is nowhere even one whit more ridicu-
lous than what Christians believe of Jesus.
Or, compare L. Ron Hubbard’s stories of Xenu and Teegeeack
against the biblical Garden of Eden and Fall of Man. Taking each side
equally literally, there is truly nothing to choose between them, in
terms of (im)plausibility. Likewise, consider the idea that God would
tell a prophet or a group of people how they should prepare food in
order for it to be acceptable to Him. Were that notion not presented in
an “acceptable,” traditional context, it would be seen as a height of
cultist absurdity. Indeed, it is far beyond any “weirdness” one could
possibly ascribe to vegetarianism, for example. Yet, kosher foods get
produced today all the same, with a special version of Coke® even
being sold for Passover (Alter, 2004).
(Tequila—without the worm—is, thankfully, apparently always
kosher when taken “in moderate amounts.” La’chiam!)
It is equally obvious that no such thing as “brainwashing” is in-
herently necessary in order to get people to ardently believe in ideas
which, in the cold light of day, make no sense at all. Indeed, it should
be clear to anyone not already committed to one side or the other that
the taking of Jesus Christ as the sole Son of God is no more, and no
less “peculiar,” than is the regard for a spiritual teacher and his wife
as being the “parents” of humanity. Yet, beliefs like the latter have
been alleged (cf. Hassan, 1990) to be induced gradually and decep-
tively, via withheld information, “love bombing,” sleep deprivation
and other “mind control” techniques. The former “reasonable” delu-
sion, on the other hand, occurs completely naturally and unforced,
with its conversions even being actively welcomed by large segments
of our everyday society.
The idea that “I used to be ‘brainwashed’ into thinking that some
Guru was the Savior of humanity, but now I’ve recovered enough to
be able to think clearly, and I realize that Jesus is the Savior,” may or
MAKE IT BETTER 507
may not strike the reader as being completely hilarious. It is also,

however, an eye-opening window into how even the most ridiculous
ideas can be taken as being completely “normal” and “safe,” if
enough people believe in them.
Conversely, you may be safely and traditionally Jewish, for ex-
ample, and believe, on the basis of holy scriptures written by the rele-
vant ancient sages, that the Messiah is yet to come (cf. Rich, 2001).
But then how do you know he won’t come from Korea, for example?
How do you distinguish “false” messiahs from the “true” one that
you’re expecting to come “any day now”? (And remember: Gener-
ally, if you fail to believe the “real” Messiah when he makes the same
claims as the “false” ones do, your salvation is toast. Good reason to
“believe,” then, to “be on the safe side.”) Is it by his manifesting of
miraculous “signs and wonders” ... a la Sai Baba? By his claimed
physical healing of others ... a la Yogananda? By his downplaying of
the claims made on his behalf, i.e., “Only the true Messiah denies his
divinity”? By his “divine love,” as vouched for by his earliest follow-
ers on down, all of whom would probably have felt (i.e., imag-
ined/projected) the same love and peace flowing from Jim Jones or
the messianic Elvis Presley? By the characteristics explicated in your
holy scriptures—the authors of which were surely no more wise or
reliable than are the contemporary likes of Cohen, Da and Wilber?
Would the “real” Messiah reportedly own a machine-gun fac-
tory? Presumably not; but yet, as every devotee of the sun and moon
knows, “God works in mysterious ways”—who are we to question the
Divine, even in His human forms? If the Messiah doesn’t conform to
what the prophets of old said to expect, perhaps those ancient proph-
ets got it wrong, right? Plus, Jesus himself overturned the tables of the
money-lenders, even if not utilizing submachine guns in that, as a real
“Rambo-dhisattva”—some things just require force.
If God spoke to Adam and to Abraham, why shouldn’t He speak
equally clearly to Ramakrishna and Sai Baba? Conversely, though, if
none of the top forty “sages” of today are what they claim to be, what
makes you think that things were any different for the equally “au-
thentic prophets” millennia ago? Realistically, given the absence of
the scientific method and the corresponding greater degree of super-
stition, those aged figures could only have been even less reliable.
Whether one is devoutly believing that a messianic Santa Claus
lived two thousand years ago, or that Santa Claus is incarnate today,
or that the real Santa Claus is yet to come on some long-anticipated

Christmas Eve in the future, all are equally childish beliefs in some-
thing which blatantly doesn’t exist. To regard one of those fairy tales
as being “believable,” and the others as “ridiculous” or “obviously
cultish,” is more than I would personally be prepared to do.
If and when it turns out that the fat guy in the red suit at your lo-
cal mall/ashram isn’t the “real” Santa Claus, then, you might wisely
take the hint, rather than sincerely searching throughout other malls
across the world, convinced that one of them may harbor the genuine
article.
Further, if someone keeps sneaking down your chimney in the
middle of the night, and molesting your wife or daughters while
claiming to be a “Perfect Santa Claus Master,” you’d want to know
about it, right?
The real Santa Claus, though, would at least know where all the
naughty girls live. Now there’s a list worth checking twice!
***
The degree to which one is impressed by any purported sage’s reali-

zation of a permanently enlightened, witnessing consciousness, will
depend on what one takes the origin of self-awareness to be. That is,
it will hinge on whether one believes that such witnessing self-
awareness is an essential characteristic of Spirit and of one’s realiza-
tion of That, or rather takes it as deriving from mere biochemical re-
actions in the brain. For, in the latter case, such “realization” would
indeed not be anything to get excited about. Either way, though, such
“I am” awareness exists with our without the presence of thoughts in
one’s mental milieu.
Interestingly, then, Wilber himself claims (2000a) to be able to
voluntarily enter a “brain-dead” state with no alpha, beta, or theta, yet
“maximum delta” brainwaves, in nirvikalpa samadhi. Indeed, he has
video of that EEG posted on the Integral Naked (2004) website. Pre-
sumably, none of that declaration has been exaggerated, i.e., one as-
sumes that he has managed to hook the machine up correctly, and is
not otherwise tampering with the results. If so, though, simply dem-
onstrating the parapsychological component (if any) of that claim un-
der properly controlled conditions could net him a cool $million at
Randi’s JREF. (My own impression is that such abilities might well
MAKE IT BETTER 509
be comparable to past incidents of yogis being able to put their hearts

into a fast flutter, and then claiming that they had “stopped” the
heartbeat [cf. Koestler, 1960]. That is, even valid claims are at least as
likely to be simple, untapped capabilities of the physical body, as they
are to indicate anything “mystical” or paranormal.)
The same million-dollar qualifying nature would of course apply
to the purported healing abilities of Barbara Ann Brennan, for exam-
ple. Those are indeed claimed to be demonstrated regularly at her
healing school (www.barbarabrennan.com) in Boca Raton, Florida.
Brennan has been regarded by the Da-admiring Elizabeth
Kübler-Ross as being “one of the best spiritual ... healers in the West-
ern hemisphere.” Back in my “believer” days, I paid through the figu-
rative nose for healing sessions with two of her graduates. One of
them, grossly guilty of “playing psychologist” in his appointed hour,
has since acted as a dean at her school. The beneficial effect of their
healings on me? To quote Bruce Springsteen: “Absolutely nothing;
say it again.”
Brennan’s school exists a mere three-quarter-hour hop, skip and
jump from Fort Lauderdale’s JREF. Wilber’s excursion would be
somewhat longer, but still, for a full million, “cash on the barrel’s
head,” it’s probably do-able.
The dozen most frequently given excuses for claimed paranor-
malists not “putting their money where their mouth is” and collecting
the million dollars that they so richly deserve have already been com-
piled by Randi (2002c). No sense reinventing that wheel, then.
For my own part, I am well past the point of accepting any para-
psychological claims without them having been proved under appro-
priately controlled conditions. Nor would even finding one such elu-
sive “white crow” or valid psychic make the rest of our world’s
crows, or purported clairvoyants/siddhas/healers, any less “black.”
Nor would it fix any of the huge, documented problems with Wilber’s
work and character.
Still, if I could ask Santa Claus to bring me one thing for Christ-
mas....
***
No skeptic needs to “look through the microscope,” or attempt to de-

velop paranormal abilities himself, in order to validly have an opinion
about whether the claims of purported mystics and healers are valid.
Rather, it is more than sufficient for skeptics to insist that such abili-
ties be demonstrated in experiments designed to directly or indirectly
test for their existence, e.g., to distinguish one set of microscope
“slides” from another at a better than “guessing” level.
You say you can see different auras around different people?
Fine: Take two people, hidden behind baffles, with only their sup-
posed energy fields extending beyond, for those to be visible to you.
Ensure that there is no possibility of “cheating” or cueing. If you can
really see their auras, you will be able to tell who is behind which
baffle, in a series of trials, at a better than chance level.
You believe you can do astral remote viewing? Great: There’s a
five-digit number written down on a piece of paper, tacked to a wall
in a specified location. It will be visible to you if, and only if, you can
actually travel to that location in your astral body on an appointed
day. If you can really do that viewing, then, you will have no diffi-
culty at all in discerning the specific number in each of a series of
trials.
Those are inexpensive, definitive, “yes-or-no” experiments—as
opposed to, say, Marilyn Schlitz’s recent “remote viewings” of “tour-
ist sites in Rome from her home in Detroit” (Gorski, 2001), or Ingo
Swann’s purported subtle jaunts to Jupiter (the planet) in the late
1970s (Randi, 1980). Such elementary, not-subject-to-interpretation
tests do not depend on any new theory, or on what the laws of physics
may or may not allow. Rather, they simply ask that paranormalists
demonstrate their claimed abilities to “use their microscopes” under
properly controlled (e.g., double-blind) conditions, where they can’t
be fooling themselves or mistaking imagination for reality.
Both of the above definitive experiments, and many others like
them, have been performed numerous times. (See Lane [1997] and
Blackmore [1983]; plus the simple and correspondingly devastating
[though unfortunately not double-blind] tests of Therapeutic Touch
done by elementary schoolgirl Emily Rosa, related in Seidman [2001]
and Randi [2003e].) That, though, has only been to the unfortunate
acute embarrassment, and subsequent denial and excuse-making, of
the tested individuals. For, their claimed paranormal abilities have
invariably turned out to be merely imagined.
Worse, with regard to even “genuine enlightenment”: As Rich-
ard Feynman could easily have noted, the mere feeling of being “one
MAKE IT BETTER 511
with all reality”—i.e., of having “no boundary” in consciousness—for

example, does not mean that you really are thus undivided. After all,
each one of us has all manner of internally produced feelings which
have no objective correspondent. Until you can produce some verifi-
able artifact of knowledge through such purported superconscious
states (whether astral, causal, witnessing, nondual, or whatever)
which you could not have gotten any other way, it remains an utterly
unsubstantiated claim, which anyone can make. Nor can you yourself
know whether your own experiences in those states are ontologically
real, or merely imagined.
Our world’s “sages” in general, even when they were being
“honest,” have again consistently misinterpreted utterly normal phe-
nomena as being paranormal, and mistaken innumerable hallucina-
tions for meaningful visions. They have, that is, regularly proven
themselves unable to distinguish between “real” mystical experiences,
and merely imagined ones. Consequently, no one need feel obliged to
take seriously their equally confident claims, filtered through the
same addled mindset, as to even something so basic as the existence
and nature of Spirit. Conversely, if one chooses to believe in the exis-
tence of That, it is in spite of the veracity of our world’s “meditation
masters,” not because of their “personal authority.”
***
Half of the practical problem with the very idea of witnessing and/or
nondual enlightenment is that such a realization, even if it is ontologi-
cally real rather than just a subjective shift, regards everything
equally. It thus, even in the standard and wholly non-controversial
accepted understandings, inherently does nothing whatsoever to make
one a better person (via undoing one’s psychological kinks or other-
wise), or to make the world a better place. One could, in all serious-
ness, be the greatest living Realizer, and still be a pedophile, rapist, or
murderer.
Conversely, no crime or misbehavior, no matter how heinous,
perpetrated by such a great “sage,” could do anything to disprove his
or her claimed realization. Thus, Ramakrishna’s pedophilia, for ex-
ample, “only shows how difficult it is for people afflicted with that
orientation to grow past it,” and says nothing about his realization: He
was still “indubitably” a “great sage.” Indeed, his behaviors may even
be used to validate one’s own comparable sadhana. (As to why Sai

Baba’s alleged pedophilia would not be equally tolerable, given his
fully comparable claims to divinity: it basically depends on who you
started out naïvely believing to be “authentic” in the sagely arena.)
The likes of Da, too, even given all of his alleged abuses, could still
be Self-realized, just “patterned by partying behaviors.”
Hell, you could be Jack the Ripper, attain to nondual awareness,
and go right on ripping. You could be Adolf Hitler himself, not
merely “mystically awakened” but nondually enlightened, and it
wouldn’t affect your actions one damned bit.
That exalted nondual realization—so beloved of Ken Wilber and
Drukpa Kunley—even if real, is then worth pursuing ... why, exactly?
Of course, when one has “pledged enlightenment” for so long, it
must be worth something. Even if auras and subtle energies don’t ex-
ist, even if parapsychology was bogus from the beginning, even if
every hoped-for superphysical phenomenon falls by the wayside,
nondual enlightenment must be worth something.
Mustn’t it?
***
There is no question that the “mind control” techniques cited earlier

exist, that they are used, and that they do a lot to make things get
worse, faster—as the deindividuation, force-feeding, humiliation and
sleep deprivation did in Zimbardo’s study. But even without them, in
a “safe, traditional” religion, as soon as you have accepted the “divine
guidance” and/or infallibility of those above you, you cannot disobey.
And as soon as you have bought fully into the purported existence of
hellfire and damnation or the like, you cannot leave that thought-
environment without risking your eternal soul. That is, once deeply
accepted, such “reasonable” and socially accepted beliefs again leave
one no more able to freely choose to walk away from the traditional
religion to face the possibility of eternal damnation, than one is free to
walk away from a “destructive cult” and face a similar future.
Yet, that does not lessen the fact that people of sound mind and
body, fully functional in the real world, will convert completely vol-
untarily, under no duress at all, to exactly such restrictive sets of ten-
ets. In the face of such facts, the idea that “cult” members believe
wacky things only because they were fed the belief system in incre-
MAKE IT BETTER 513
mental “bits and pieces,” in the midst of “love-bombing” or the like,

rather than having the entire theology dispassionately explained to
them up front, is not supportable. The worst negatives may well not
be presented until one has publicly committed to the best of the salvi-
fic positives. But those negatives are still just the flip side of the posi-
tives; one readily accepts them, if it means being part of the “saved”
group.
And we all want to be part of the “in” group, or to be “chosen”
by God, right? And to have the social support of others who are
equally “special”? Why else would we find people barely escaping
from nontraditional salvific “cults” to then join “safe,” nontraditional
religions? For the latter, in their early years of devotion and obedi-
ence to “the one true Savior,” or to the relevant apocalyptic “proph-
ets” preceding or following him, were indistinguishable from the for-
mer.
One should therefore not underestimate the human need to be-
lieve in Something—Anything—particularly if believing in that Big
Something can be both a means of salvation and a route to social ap-
proval. Our species has never needed to be coerced into believing
“seven impossible things before breakfast.” Rather, we have always
done that quite willingly, even in the most ordinary circumstances.
Indeed, the acceptance of the most hellish, fear-inducing of those be-
liefs occurs, with full social sanction, as part of every one of our
world’s “safe, traditional” religions.
Whatever psychosocial factors may account for such conver-
sions, then, they quite clearly occur with sufficient intensity in the
real world to bring in new converts to both nontraditional and tradi-
tional religions, even without the use of physical force, deceptive re-
cruiting or psychological duress.
Nor is the degree of “mature obedience” given by devoted Chris-
tians to Jesus any different from that given by any other loyal follow-
ers to their guru-figure: If (the Son of) God asks you to do something,
you do it, right? The only “difference” is that Christians have found
the “one true/best, living Savior,” of whom every bizarre positive
claim is necessarily “true”—as it was for Rajneesh, Jim Jones and
David Koresh, etc., in the eyes of their devoted disciples in their own
times.
Conversely, in my own opinion, the miracles ostensibly per-
formed by the likes of Sai Baba, Adi Da and Yogananda are no more,
and no less, likely to be real, than are those credited to Jesus. Which
is to say, not likely at all. For, contrary to the frequently invoked
comparison, the existence of fool’s gold (i.e., “false gurus”) does not
mean that real gold (i.e., enlightenment and “true gurus”) exists.
Rather, it simply means that there are a lot of fools out there, who
naïvely believe their eyes when they should rather be applying every
possible rational test to the claims being placed before them.
I should know: I used to be one of those very same fools.
As David Lane has often noted, we would not think of buying a
used car—whether sold by Bhagavan Das, Werner Erhard or other-
wise—without first “kicking the tires.” Yet, we do not think to
equally properly question the assertions made by our world’s “god-
men” (e.g., Da Lemon and his ’74 Corona, with optional dildo-shaped
gearshift knob ... “paradise by the dashboard light”) before giving up
our independence and willingly/blindly following them. Further, we
again do that too often on the “good advice” of the “geniuses” and
elders in transpersonal and integral psychology. For, we quite rea-
sonably assume that they have done at least minimal research, and
thus that they would be in a position to offer more intelligent and in-
formed opinions than our own.
Big mistake.
***
Of course, one is still free, even after all that, to believe that Jesus
raised others (e.g., Lazarus) from the dead—as, it is claimed, did
Yogananda and Meher Baba. (And as has Scientology: “Hubbard
claims they brought a dead child back to life by ordering the thetan
back and telling him to take over the body again” [Cooper, 1971].)
And, that Christ fed the multitudes with manifested foodstuffs—as
has Sai Baba. And, that J. C. rose from the grave himself—as, it is
claimed, did Yogananda’s guru, Sri Yukteswar.
As Lalich (2004) noted, however—apparently with unintentional
yet heavy irony—in the context of our world’s potentially harmful
nontraditional groups:
Countless examples—from making preposterous claims of

raising the dead to taking multiple wives to committing ...
murder ... clearly illustrate that some [so-called] cult members
MAKE IT BETTER 515
make seemingly irrational, harmful, and sometimes fatal deci-

sions. Yet these acts are committed in a context that makes
perfect sense at the time to those who enact them and are, in
fact, consistent with an ideology or belief system that they trust
represents their highest aspirations....
Some [alleged] cults are totalistic when they are exclusive
in their ideology (i.e., it is sacred, the only way).
Raising the dead: traditional Christianity.

Multiple wives: the Mormons, in their early days.
Committing murder in an ideological context where it makes
“perfect sense” at the time: the witch hunts, the Crusades, etc.
“The only way”: insert your preferred traditional religion here,
whether petrified of condoms and masturbation, swigging Kosher-
Cola, or fixated on modesty-enforcing burkas.
Sauce for the nontraditional goose, sauce for the traditional gan-
der.
Further, when considering the purported “divinity” of the foun-
ders of any of our world’s traditional religions, keep in mind that had
any of the more recent “Christ-like” figures lived two thousand years
ago, we would today know none of the reported “dirt” on them. That
is, their “divinity” would remain intact, as Ramakrishna’s almost did.
Conversely, were Jesus alive today, all of his “Last Temptation”-like
human indiscretions would have been put into print by journalists and
disgruntled former followers. So, it is really just an accident of history
that “Christ-like” gurus such as Sai Baba or Ramakrishna have been
exposed enough for one to reasonably question their divinity and rec-
ognize the reportedly dangerous nature of their closed communities of
disciples, while others such as Jesus have not.
I had been trying to figure out the difference between a [so-

called] cult and a religion—and had decided it was only two
things: a matter of time and conformity (Sherrill, 2000).
All religions, except perhaps the very earliest and most primi-
tive, begin as new religious movements. That is, they begin as
movements based on spiritual innovation usually in a state of
high oppositional tension with prevailing religious practices.
Often, they are begun by charismatic religious entrepreneurs
(Zablocki, 1998).
Conversely:
In its first thousand years, the [Catholic] Church grew from a

tiny, underground [so-called] cult into a vast, multinational
power (Aarons and Loftus, 1998).
Similarly:
Like many groups that were formerly enfantes terribles, Scien-

tology, if it continues in its current clean-up campaign, may
one day become one of the world’s most respected groups or
Churches (Cooper, 1971).
Indeed, as Scientology’s John Travolta once put it (in Gould,

1998): “I’m sure Christianity had some problems too in its first fifty
years.” (Tell that to Lisa McPherson. Oh, you can’t....)
Saturday Night Fever ... or Saturday Night Mass. You decide.
[O]ne asks oneself how much is really known about the foun-
ders and originators of the great classical religions of the past?
How did they really begin? What were the true motives of their
founders?.... Supposing that the world rolls on for a thousand
years ... what then will the mythology of Scientology look
like? And what stories will people be telling of Mr. Lafayette
Ronald Hubbard, his teachings and his first disciples? (Evans,
1973).
In any case, if enough people believe that Jesus Christ (or Da

Savior) is the sole Son of God, given to this world via Virgin/Dildo
Birth and ascended into Glory, it ceases to be “weird,” and the belief
begins to be “inherited” by the children of each parent follower of
that “one true/best guru.” Comparably, as Strelley (1987) noted, even
pathological events and beliefs within Rajneesh’s ashram “all seemed
familiar and ‘normal’ because that was the world we had built and
were living in every minute of our lives.” Indeed, as a general princi-
ple:
A community is a community. Just as it is bizarre to those not

in it, so it is natural ... to those who live it from within (Goff-
man, 1961).
MAKE IT BETTER 517
If enough people believed that Adi Da was “the greatest Real-

izer,” etc., the same homogenization and inheritance of belief would
occur, and it would become weird to not believe that he was “the
greatest.”
Thankfully, that is not likely to happen.
Conversely, broadcasting the original meaning of Jesus’ teach-
ings in the Bible Belt today would produce every bit as much unrest
as could be found in Rome two thousand years ago. It is not only con-
temporary so-called cults, after all, who encourage their members to
“go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor” (Matthew 19:21).
Nor is that the only point of comparison:
Many [alleged] cults put great pressure on new members to

leave their families, friends, and jobs to become immersed in
the group’s major purpose. This isolation tactic is one of the ...
most common mechanisms of control and enforced depend-
ency (Singer, 2003).
Likewise:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of

me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me,
is not worthy of me (Matthew 10:37-8).
Accepting a guru-disciple relationship in any context clearly

calls for an attitude of “meditator beware.” My own “learned the hard
way” opinion is that one is far better off without that often-destructive
relationship. That is true particularly given the fact that few if any of
our world’s guru-figures are even close to being as “perfect” as their
disciples would like to believe. I, at least, am not aware of any who
merit even one-tenth of the respect which is offered to them. Nor,
given basic human psychology, do I believe that such a meriting is, in
practice, even possible, given the unavoidable presence of massive
transference on the part of loyal followers.
Of one hundred persons who take up the spiritual life, eighty

turn out to be charlatans, fifteen insane, and only five, maybe,
get a glimpse of the real truth. Therefore beware (Vivekan-

anda, in [Nikhilananda, 1996]).
[I]t is my belief that 90% of the so-called masters in the mod-

ern world are not enlightened at all (Harvey, 2000).
Of course, the “best” of the guru-figures we have covered herein

—e.g., Ramakrishna, whom Harvey still quotes approvingly—would
account for a good amount of the remaining 10%. (The fact that Har-
vey—“probably the preeminent mystic of our day” [Knight, 2003]—
ridiculously considers the same 90% of “unenlightened masters” to be
“occult magicians,” holding their disciples in sway via real, super-
natural powers, need not concern us here. Comparably, for the born-
again Tal Brooke, Sai Baba was viewed as being closer to a literal
“Antichrist” than a simple opportunistic conjuror. Yet projection and
transference, which factor overwhelmingly into the guru-disciple rela-
tionship, are neither “occult” nor “from the devil.” So get a grip. Or
was the Beatles’ earth-scooping, bladder-control-losing effect on their
fans, too, based in “occult magic”?)
Nor was the situation any better in the days before our modern
world:
Buddha said that the chances of encountering a genuine

teacher and getting enlightened were about on a par with the
likelihood that a turtle coming to the surface in the middle of
the ocean would put his head through a single ring tossed on
the waves (Butterfield, 1994).
Even having ostensibly found that “ring,” Stan Trout, a former

decade-long swami follower of Muktananda, rightly observed:
Those who willingly put aside their own autonomy, their own
moral judgment, to obey even a Christ, a Buddha, or a Krishna,
do so at risk of losing a great deal more than they can hope to
gain [italics added].
One might take comfort, then, in the fact that Ramana Maharshi
himself not only accepted no disciples, but had no human guru: “Guru
is God or the Self.” (At other times, Maharshi actually regarded
Mount Arunachala—and presumably “all of the siddhas in it”—as his
MAKE IT BETTER 519
guru. Whatever.) Aurobindo too (1953) “never took any formal initia-
tion from anyone.” The same is true of the Buddha.
Whatever spiritual evolution might be realized under a guru,
then, can obviously also be gotten without one. And given all of the
problems we have noted with guru-figures, disciples, and their rela-
tionships, there is a lot to be said for erring on the side of caution in
that regard.
Nor will simply asking for an “honest opinion” from the current
followers of any purported sage keep one safe in all that. For, in the
vast majority of cases, the loyal disciples who defend the “noble
cause” are simply those who have not yet been sufficiently harmed by
the guru. Or, they have not yet gotten close enough to him/her and the
inner circle for long enough to comprehend what is really going on.
Or, they are so close to the guru, and in need of preserving that posi-
tion, as to lose all perspective, having wholly set aside their ability to
impartially evaluate his actions, as they must if they are to be “good
disciples.”
As the head of Adi Da’s Hermitage Service Order expressed his
view of Da and his “Teachings” (in Colin, et al., 1985):
He operates with the highest of integrity.... It is the most genu-

ine thing I have ever encountered in my entire life.
Likewise, for another seclusive “avatar”:
Jim [Jones] is a man of absolutely unimpeachable character (in

Layton, 1998).
Eugene Chaikin, a Californian attorney who became a member

of the [People’s] Temple, [described Jim Jones] as the most
loving, Christ-like human being he had ever met. Another law
graduate [actually, the assistant district attorney in San Fran-
cisco], Tim Stoen, called Jones “the most compassionate, hon-
est and courageous human being the world contains” (Storr,
1996).
Similarly for Heaven’s Gate:

One early follower [of Applewhite and Nettles] recalled, “I

just felt drawn to them. You could feel the goodness” (Lalich,
2004).
One takes such positive evaluations seriously—with the above

being indistinguishable from the gushing which any loyal disciple
would do over his or her “genuine/best/greatest” guru-figure—only at
one’s own grave risk.
So rather send a “deep, devotional bow” to Jim Jones than to the
likes of Adi Da or Andrew Cohen, if you must at all. For at least
Jones, like Applewhite, being long deceased, can do no further harm
to persons so foolish as to trust him.
***
Rick Ross (2005c) gives ten characteristics to look for in a safe group
and/or leader. Those range from the encouraging of critical thinking
and individual autonomy in the followers, to the acceptance by the
leader of constructive criticism, to a democratic environment, to will-
ing financial disclosure on the part of the organization.
Good luck with finding any number of those characteristics in
any “authentic, spiritually transformative” environment, though (or
even in the typical business corporation, for that matter). For, such a
group begins, by definition, with a leader who is more “spiritually
evolved”—i.e., who ostensibly sees truth more clearly—than the peo-
ple around him. That is, he merits his position as leader not merely for
having a greater, studied understanding of one or another set of holy
scriptures, but rather for possessing a higher degree of enlightenment.
“Fortunately,” though, the eager aspirants around him can attain
to that same height if they simply follow his teachings and instruc-
tions. Thence follows role-playing, respect-hungering, and the under-
standable desire to distance oneself from anything that might interfere
with one’s most-valued spiritual progress (e.g., attachments, family,
sex, etc.). And with the need to obediently endure anything which
might accelerate the realization of one’s becoming “as great as” the
leader himself is, as quickly as possible, it’s all downhill from there.
So it is, by now, in no way surprising that even the best of our
world’s spiritual communities—whether “integral” or otherwise—
have been known to quickly degenerate into “problematic” nests,
MAKE IT BETTER 521
leaving their idealistic followers wondering, “Where did it all go

wrong?” For, basic human psychology and unavoidable social struc-
tures, even without any explicit attempts at “mind control” or “brain-
washing,” will be sufficient to ensure that descent in any relatively
closely thought-society.
The point, again, is not that brainwashing, mind control, decep-
tive recruiting and enforced isolation do not exist, for they surely do.
But even without them, things are much worse than would be imag-
ined by theorists who point to such issues as being distinguishing
characteristics of so-called cults.
If you cannot bring yourself to accept that, you are free to con-
tinue believing that the Roman Catholic Church, the U.S. Marines,
and the average prison, for example, are “safe” places to be. And
good luck to you in that—you’re going to need it, should people you
care about ever become trapped in those “non-cult” environments.
***
The collection of “enlightened” individuals we have considered here

are again in no way the worst of our world’s spiritual teachers, but are
rather among the universally recognized best. The disregard for the
guru-disciple relationship evinced herein thus has nothing to do with
simply rejecting it, whether wisely or blindly, in favor of an alterna-
tive emphasis on individuality and independence, without regard for
the benefits of learning from a teacher wiser than oneself. Rather,
such disdain is the simple and unavoidable outcome of recognizing
the high probability that, in any given case, the guru-disciple relation-
ship is very likely to do much more harm than good.
Conversely, the relevant question is not why anyone should be
“anti-guru,” but rather: How could anyone, in the face of all of the
long-extant reported issues quoted herein, still be “pro-guru”? If the
assertion is that the good mixed in with the bad (for any given spiri-
tual teacher) offsets the latter, the appropriate response is that a mix-
ture of nectar and poison is more dangerous than is one of poison
alone. After all, animals die from drinking anti-freeze because it
tastes good. Were it not for the good, they would not simultaneously
swallow the bad.
As Dick Anthony (et al., 1987) quite unsuspectingly put it:
[A] number of group leaders who evolved into dangerous, au-

thoritarian tyrants seemed truly to have ... loving kindness,
generosity, selflessness. These leaders were extremely danger-
ous precisely because they did combine such an unlikely mix
of extreme beneficence and extreme abusiveness within them.
The beneficence was prominent first, attracted a large, devoted
following, and then gradually gave way to a “dark side” that
came increasingly into expression over ten or twenty years,
imperceptibly turning heaven into hell for the followers.
***
If all of this seems too cynical, simply compare the reported behav-
iors we have seen herein with how any sensible and self-honest per-
son would behave. Couldn’t you (outside of the eventual, perspective-
losing effects of imperial role-playing) do better than every one of the
respected spiritual figures evaluated here, in guiding other people’s
evolution, regardless of whether the enlightenment claimed by each
of these so-called sages is real or imagined? Even if your every hid-
den indiscretion was made public, wouldn’t you still come off looking
like a better human being than any of these bozos?
Then, factor in the orders-of-magnitude difference between the
disinfected, hagiographic versions of the lives of undisputed “sages”
such as Ramakrishna and Krishnamurti, versus their real natures. And
in doing that, never be so naïve as to imagine that the distortions,
cover-ups, group-think, wishful thinking and outright fabrications
applied to any claimed saint’s daily behavior by his vested-interest
disciples would not be effected just as much with regard to his or her
visionary experiences, other “miracles,” and overall “compassionate”
nature.
I would personally still like for most of the fairy tales told in the
name of spirituality to be true. The problem which I have by now in
accepting any of them is not that I would a priori or “scientifically”
find it difficult to believe that human volition can affect the behavior
of matter. Indeed, I would still actively prefer for auras, chakras, sub-
tle energies, astral travel, manifested “loaves and fishes” and their ilk
to exist. The issue I have by now is simply that the sources of infor-
mation in all of those “miraculous” and mystical regards are so unre-
liable as to be less than worthless. Further, the claimed phenomena
MAKE IT BETTER 523
fail uniformly, on every point on which they have been properly

tested, to stand up to simple rational questioning and reproducibility.
Believe it or not, back when I was loyally following Yogananda,
and up until I began the intensive, year-long research for the present
book, I was actually of the opinion that no one could be so deluded as
to confuse his or her fantasies with reality. (After all, I have never
mistaken the products of my own imagination for what is real, so no
one else would, right?) Nor had I in any measure appreciated the de-
gree to which fertile human imagination can create—as Hubbard
proved, and Hoskins/Rampa showed to a lesser extent—a religion of
pure fiction, and have that taken as divinely revealed fact by credu-
lous followers.
Worse, when I entered Hidden Valley and signed the agreement
stating that I would regard my superiors there as being vehicles of
God and guru, and obey them accordingly, I genuinely believed that
they were exactly such wise and specific “channels.” (They said they
were, right?) Yet, far from being executed under duress, that was
again simply what I had been taught to believe, from a “safe distance”
away in a far too trusting approach to life, by “holy” people who I
naïvely assumed would never mislead me. I would even have been
most willing to literally jump off a cliff—as the Babaji fairy tale
goes—to prove my loyalty to the guru, had he appeared and requested
that.
Oy....
Nor had I imagined that anyone could be so scared of particulars
which did not fit into his or her spiritual view of things as to “kill the
messenger.” That is, I would never have guessed that the transper-
sonal community, for one, would prefer to defend a set of pleasant
fantasies having little more value than the childhood belief in Santa
Claus, rather than simply facing up to reality.
“To be that young again.”
And interestingly, it is not the skeptics who have convinced me
that 98% (or more) of spirituality is utter garbage. Rather, as the re-
search herein would easily disclose, I have become convinced of that
high percentage of idiocy simply by looking in detail at the inept and
inconsistent claims of the most highly respected believers, theoreti-
cians and experimentalists in the spiritual marketplace.
As the wag said, “The easiest way to prove a man [or woman] a
fool is to let him [or her] speak his [or her] mind.” And that applies
doubly, it seems, to our world’s “god-men” (and -women). For, the

more they speak, the more they prove, to anyone not already under
their authoritarian spells, that they are not even close to being what
they claim to be.
***
If people were really well-informed, they would be immune to

bad gurus (Robert Thurman, in [Watanabe, 1998]).
Well, you are now “really well-informed.” And being thus wise,
knowing of the Dalai Lama’s admiration for Drukpa Kunley, and be-
ing cognizant of Richard Baker’s reported behaviors at the SF Zen
Center ... you would not be surprised to learn that Thurman is still a
loyal admirer of the homophobic, non-masturbating, “false Kar-
mapa”-supporting Lama, after having been a friend of SFZC during
Baker’s apocalyptic tenure there. Nor would you be taken aback to
find that Thurman, in spite of his own “immunity to bad gurus” and
foolish pandits after a lifetime of spiritual study and practice ... is a
founding member of Wilber’s Integral Institute. Nor would you
nearly fall off your chair in learning that he has released a recording
of dialogs on Buddhism and politics between himself ... and Deepak
Chopra.
Interestingly, both Thurman and the Dalai Lama endorsed Cho-
pra’s (2000) book, How to Know God ... as did Ken Wilber and Uri
Geller. If we are “known by the company we keep”.... Anyway, Thur-
man called it the “most important book about God for our times.” Not
to be outdone, the Mikhail Gorbachev “pulled a Wilber” in elevating
Chopra to the position of being “undoubtedly one of the most lucid
and inspired philosophers of our times.”
Good Lord ... compared to Norman Einstein, maybe....
And all of that, while Thurman was simultaneously being named
as one of Time magazine’s twenty-five most influential people in
1997, and viewed as “America’s number one Buddhist” by the New
York Times. The point being that, with no particular disrespect in-
tended toward Dr. Thurman, even the best and most-respected figures
in Buddhism and elsewhere demonstrably cannot be relied upon to do
other than lead us directly to spiritual teachers whom we would do
MAKE IT BETTER 525
much better to avoid, should we make the mistake of following their

“really well-informed” advice.
Even someone like the Buddhist teacher Jack Kornfield has
again failed to do even minimally adequate research regarding the
alleged unpunished breaking of rules in the East, before offering a
confident, “watertight” opinion. That is, he has presented a superfi-
cially convincing, but ultimately utterly false and quite wilber-esquely
half-baked theory, as if it were inarguable, researched fact. Further,
he was still maintaining that indefensible opinion nearly two decades
after his own days teaching at Trungpa’s Naropa during its most
“wild and crazy” period. Those, too, were its most overtly “cult-like”
times, as is painfully obvious for anyone with eyes even halfway open
to see such things.
Few “experts” in Eastern spirituality are better informed, or more
trustworthy or level-headed, than are Thurman and Kornfield. Yet, it
is merely one small step from them and their “informed” opinions to
find yourself following the likes of Trungpa, Chopra, Richard Baker,
or the “Tibetan Catholic” Dalai Lama.
Or, consider the work of Rabbi Michael Lerner—briefly dubbed
the “guru of the White House” during the Clinton administration.
(During a period of unpopularity, the Clintons also sought advice
from the Muktananda-admiring, firewalking Tony Robbins. That self-
help icon has guested on Wilber’s Integral Naked forum, and has also
been an interviewee of Andrew Cohen [1999a].) Lerner is a close
friend of Ken Wilber, and another founding member of the Integral
Institute. And, while his political Tikkun organization (www.tikkun
.org), groups and magazine may well be “safe and nourishing” ones,
he also considers Wilber to be a “great mind,” whose “brilliance
pours out on every page” of his journals.
Well, there’s something pouring out, alright, but it ain’t bril-
liance.
And then this from the same man—Lerner—blurbing for Wil-
ber’s (2001b) A Theory of Everything:
Ken Wilber is one of the most creative spiritual thinkers alive

today, and A Theory of Everything is an accessible taste of his
brilliance. Like a masterful conductor, he brings everyone in,
finds room for science and spirit, and creates music for the
soul.
Uh-huh. Sure. The “Leonard Bernstein of consciousness stud-

ies.” Whatever.
Suppose, then, that you, as a young but dedicated spiritual seeker
and/or political activist, and an admirer of Lerner, were to attend one
or another of the Tikkun functions. And suppose that you discovered
the work of Ken Wilber through that, devouring his “brilliant” books
in the following months. Not knowing any better, you would un-
doubtedly be impressed by the great man’s “genius” and “compas-
sion” on such a wide range of subjects—as I myself was for two
months, those many naïve years ago—particularly given Lerner’s en-
dorsement of that “brilliance.”
How long would it be, then, before you followed kw’s “good ad-
vice” in those writings? How long before you (perhaps not unlike Mr.
Kowalczyk) found yourself “surrendered completely” as a non-
celebrity to a “great Realizer,” whose every alleged “Rude Boy”
abuse was being indulged in only for your own benefit, as a wise
“Teaching”?
Lerner himself has not only endorsed Andrew Cohen’s vacuous
Living Enlightenment (2002), but also been interviewed by Cohen in
What Is Enlightenment? (2001a) magazine. Dr. Lerner has a Ph.D. in
clinical psychology; Cohen, perhaps unique among human beings,
has no psychological shadow (or so he claims). He would thus surely
have made a fascinating case study for Lerner, had the latter’s eyes
been open to that rare, breakthrough opportunity.
Interestingly, other enthusiastic endorsers of Cohen’s Living En-
lightenment have included Jack Crittenden, Deepak Chopra, Lee Lo-
zowick, the decoy-fancying Mariana Caplan, and the late Swami
Satchidananda himself ... back when he was “early.”
Exalted company, indeed.
Yet, “with great power comes great responsibility.” And if one is
using one’s good name in any field to give credibility to others, one
has a grave responsibility to ensure that the latter are actually some
semblance of what they claim to be. Yet, one struggles to find any
comprehension of that fact among Wilber and the rest of these “ex-
perts.” For, if they had understood that principle at all, they would be
very humbled to realize the irreparable damage they have done in in-
defensibly encouraging others to throw their lives away in “surrender-
ing completely” to the likes of Da and Cohen.
MAKE IT BETTER 527
***
For my own part, the actions alleged of our world’s “fire-breathing”

gurus (e.g., at the WHAT enlightenment??! website) and their
henchmen remind me of nothing so much as having transferred rural
schools in grade seven.
The previous year, the “alpha male” in that new environment
had, I was told, been forcing the boys in the grade below him to crawl
through mud and endure other forms of mistreatment. Why? Just be-
cause he could exercise that power—no better reason or provocation,
outside of his own insecure psychology.
Appropriately, the power-abusing boy got his comeuppance the
following year, being beaten up by his peers in grade seven.
His brave response? To go crying to his pastoral parents about
that, tearfully begging that they move to a different community, etc.,
but of course making no mention of how he had merited that retribu-
tion.
If only our world’s guru-figures and spiritual seekers in general
had as much sense as a bunch of thirteen-year-olds. They might, in
that case, consider holding their peers and heroes responsible for their
reported abuses of power, i.e., “As ye beat the crap out of others, so
shall the crap be beaten out of you.” With even that minimal applica-
tion of intelligence and real compassion, there would be far fewer
simpering “Rude Boys” in the world. Much less would those socially
dysfunctional idiots be celebrated for allegedly coercing others into
enduring demeaning acts “for their own good.”
That, however, seems to be far to much to ask from the rabbit-
hole likes of Tweedleken and Tweedlecohen.
***
The recurring phenomenon of “bad gurus,” from which no one is im-

mune so long as he holds on to the hope that one or another of them
can lead him closer to enlightenment, is actually completely predict-
able. For, absolute power corrupts, not merely some of the time, but
all (or at least 99.99%) of the time. (It was actually in response to the
1870 papal declaration of infallibility that Lord Acton coined the
relevant phrase [Allen, 2004].) Against that psychological reality,
whatever public face any “sage” may show in apparent tolerance for
questioning by his celebrity followers or the like, is typically no more

real than one’s temporary mask shown at a news conference might be.
And beyond even any sagely “best behavior,” human transfer-
ence and projection can create a “god” even out of a pile of shit—as
Nityananda knew well. One cannot afford to go into any such “spiri-
tual” environment with a naïvely positive attitude, “hoping for the
best,” seeing only the good in others while ignoring the red flags for
the bad, and trusting the guru-figure and his guards/henchmen to
guide you right. For, such Pollyanna-ish behavior is exactly, without
exaggeration, how Jonestowns (and Rajneeshpurams, and “true san-
ghas” such as Trungpa’s and Muktananda’s and Yogananda’s) get
started.
For my own part, however, even having been through “Hidden
Valley Hell,” I had no idea that things were anywhere near as bad as
we have seen herein, across essentially every long-respected spiritual
path, until I began the systematic research for this book. Nor, again,
had I suspected that claimed enlightenments would so widely become
thoroughly mixed-up with what any reasonable person can only take
as wild hallucinations. For, even if your guru-figure or prophet(s)
“never hallucinated,” or never abused his or her power for sexual
purposes or otherwise, quite obviously “all of the other ones” (alleg-
edly) did. Or are the “astral moon cannibal slaves,” subtle Allied
Forces, irreconcilable reincarnations of Leonardo da Vinci, sprightly
leprechauns and Paulsen’s bad-science-fiction UFOs real? Those are
not in the category of deliberate deceptions, such as one might take
the recognition of hundreds of tulkus who just happen to have rein-
carnated close to one’s own “seat” to be. Rather, the individuals in-
volved, by all appearances, genuinely believe that the things they
have seen there are real, even when other “believers” looking along
with them cannot see the same allegedly physical phenomena, as in
Paulsen’s case.
Given that reasonable (hallucinatory) interpretation, one can
again hardly help but conclude that the relevant “enlightened” indi-
viduals involved cannot distinguish reality from their own fantasies.
And in that case, they could potentially have simply imagined/hallu-
cinated/self-hypnotized every step of their own “enlightening” spiri-
tual experiences. (And again, the mere feeling of having “no bound-
ary” in consciousness does not mean that one actually is so undivided.
MAKE IT BETTER 529
Jerry Garcia once had the drug-induced feeling of dissolving into a

field of wheat; didn’t make it real, even if he was a “bodhisattva”!)
Further, no small part of what is supposed to separate mystics
from the truly insane is exactly the ability to distinguish reality from
their own fantasies or externalized voices/visions. Yet, that ability to
distinguish is exactly what is apparently lacking here.
The preceding point makes the fact that a person can be simulta-
neously at a very high level of spiritual development, and at a very
low level of development along moral lines, essentially irrelevant.
For, if one cannot tell the difference between “real” spiritual experi-
ences and imagined ones, it is not simply one’s “lack of moral devel-
opment” or the like which invalidates the supposed wisdom in the
teachings and behaviors which are based on those same experiences.
By comparison, a clinical schizophrenic with a high level of
moral or empathic development would still make a very dangerous
leader or guru-figure. That is true however clearly the imagined
“voice of God” might be speaking to him or her and then enforced on
the world “with integrity.” It is further true even if that voice is ex-
perienced as a nondual (e.g., One Taste) phenomenon by the mentally
unstable individual. Conversely, if one is going to surrender one’s
will to any guru-figure, one would hope to do better than an evalua-
tion concluding, “Sure he’s psychotic, but he’s got a lot of integrity”!
One is then left with very little indeed to cling to in all of this.
For, if even the widely recognized “best” Realizers apparently cannot
distinguish between hallucination and their own ostensibly valid re-
alizations, are lesser Realizers to be regarded as being more reliable?
Seen from that perspective, the most that any spiritual teacher
can be is a decent, honest, unpretentious, even-tempered and caring
human being, never “divinity in the flesh.” Yet, if even less than one-
tenth of the allegations made against those figures are valid, the
overwhelming majority of them would fail miserably at even that
minimal, level-headed decency. Thus, the bulk of what they would
wish to teach us by their own behaviors, no sensible person would
want to learn.
So even let each of them be every bit as enlightened as they have
claimed to be, then. (Again, if these top forty spiritual leaders are not
so divine, who is?) It makes no difference; for, with the endemic re-
ported character flaws which they bring to the table, who of them
could ever do more good than harm in the world? What use, then, is
their vaunted “enlightenment”? And, if anything like karma and rein-

carnation exist, who could suffer more for their alleged actions, in
future lives, than such respected holy fools, from the “Christ-like”
Ramakrishna on down?
The good news, though, is that none of these grandiose god-
figures, playing unconvincingly at being holy, compassionate and
wise, have any power whatsoever over anyone else other than what
you, or I, would give to them. Without our obedient submission and
credulous swallowing of their untenable claims and widespread exag-
gerations, they will dry up and blow away as if they had never ex-
isted.
Put another way: They need us much more than we need them.
As Pete Townshend had it, in one of his clearer, non-Meher-
Baba influenced moments: Won’t get fooled again.
Or, in the words of the formerly born-again Hustler magazine
publisher, Larry Flynt (in Krassner, 1993):
I believe that Jesus was not a more important teacher than

Buddha, and that neither Jesus nor Buddha is more important
than any individual.
Amen, Larry. You tell ‘em.

Please explicitly note one more thing: The apparently unstable
and/or radically unreliable “best” sagely individuals considered herein
are in large part exactly the same ones upon whose claims and author-
ity the very existence of the realization called “enlightenment” is
widely accepted. If they cannot be trusted in the details, the half-
baked half-wings, the firewalking, the inedia, the “thinking animals,”
the prophecies, the subtle Forces, the “astral moon cannibal slaves”
and the coronas, however, can they really be relied upon to accurately
represent the higher realizations from which they have derived their
greatest fame? If so very, very much of what even the most revered
spiritual Realizers in the history of our globe have said or written was
a probable hallucination, provable misrepresentation, or demonstrable
exaggeration, can you really afford to take any of their claims “on
faith”?
And if not, what are we to make of the ageless, high regard for
the institution of gurus, and the belief that they can lead you to an
enlightenment which they themselves most likely do not possess be-
MAKE IT BETTER 531
yond mere self-delusion, via your unconditional obedience to them?

Is such belief and surrender any more of a mature, rational approach
to life than is the belief in receiving comparable secular gifts from
Santa Claus, through following his instruction to be “nice” (i.e., obe-
dient) rather than “naughty”?
I, personally, do not believe that it is.
After all that, then, in both theory and practice, if you persist in
clinging to the belief that saints and sages who are everything that
they are claimed to be exist now or have ever existed in this world, I
have to ask you:
Which mall do you think the real Santa Claus can be found in?
Because that same non-existent mall is where you’ll find the Cohen
Claus, Wilber Claus, Aurobindo Claus, Yogananda Claus and Rama-
krishna Claus. And, in that same purely imaginary mall, each of those
figures will truly be the “wise, compassionate sages” they have long
publicly, if utterly fallaciously, been held to be ... and indeed have
grandiosely claimed to be, themselves.
Of course, for over a decade of my own life, I bought as fully as
anyone into the “myth of the totally enlightened guru.” But in my
own defense, I didn’t have access to the wide swath of information, as
gathered herein, which would have convinced any rational, thinking
person that the practitioners of the “guru game” are not in any way
what they present themselves as being. Indeed, without the Internet
and over five thousand hours of research, I still wouldn’t have it.
You, however, having gotten this far, do have easy access to that
information. And you can save yourself, and those you care for, from
undergoing a great deal of suffering, simply by using it wisely.
For, if we have learned one thing from Blaise Pascal, it is that
“those who play at being angels, end up as animals.”
There may still be more to religion and spirituality than mere
hallucination, dissociation, psychoses, transference, conformity, mas-
sive co-dependence (cf. Warner, 2004), belongingness needs, and hi-
erarchical outlets for power-tripping authoritarianism and “Rude
Boy” sadism. But the sad fact is that the above principles would fully
suffice to create exactly the situation which we see in the imprisoning
guru/savior-influenced “spiritual world” around us. Indeed, they could
not help but do so.
If you have not been through the “cult” experience yourself, liv-
ing on the “inside” for years (not days), you may naïvely think that
things couldn’t possibly be as bad as they are alleged to be by the dis-

illusioned members who have left any closed, totalitarian organiza-
tion/ashram. (It took some time for the free world to be able to be-
lieve that the Stalinist purges and Nazi Germany, too, were “as bad as
all that.” Yet they were.) Or you may believe that you, as a real spiri-
tual “macho man” who values Enlightenment Über Alles, could “take
the heat” for the death of your own ego, at the hands of one or another
of these bozos, or their equally clown-like spiritual cousins.
Well, good luck to you with that, then. You’re going to need it.
***
Christopher Reeve (2002) then summed up his noteworthy, common-

sense conclusions regarding spirituality. (Reeve’s own genuine spiri-
tual interests had previously led him to investigate both Muktananda
and TM, in addition to Scientology.)
Gradually I have come to believe that spirituality is found in

the way we live our daily lives. It means spending time think-
ing about others.
It should not take “Superman” to point out what the revered ava-
tars and theoreticians within the spiritual marketplace have so clearly
failed to put into practice for so long, messing up others’ lives in the
process while congratulating themselves about their own supposedly
shadow-less, “perfect” and nondual enlightenments. Of course, we all
know that consideration for others is supposed to be a prerequisite for
the spiritual path. That preliminary, however, is typically forgotten
somewhere along the way to enlightenment.
[A]s I began to spend time with people who’d devoted many

years to meditation, people who had built their lives around
spiritual practices aimed at transcending the ego, I saw that
they had many of the same difficulties I did. Few of them be-
haved more compassionately, sensitively, or selflessly than the
majority of people I knew who didn’t meditate at all
(Schwartz, 1996).
Robert Thurman (2004) told of his own related experiences with

an acquaintance of his, widely known for being calm and holy, who
MAKE IT BETTER 533
had been excluding him from participating in the dialog at a confer-

ence she was leading. When questioned by another friend as to why
he was not taking a more active role in the conversation, Thurman
replied:
“I’d love to, but So-and-so won’t allow me to talk. It seems

she has a bug in her ear about me!” I inflected my delivery in a
nasty way, knowing full well that the friend in question, stand-
ing nearby, was overhearing what I was saying.
It was a petty and rude way to speak, it showed how poor
my own self-control was, and I am ashamed to tell the story.
However, the reaction of the leader was an even greater shock.
She rushed up to me, stuck her furious face inches from mine,
and shrieked at the top of her lungs, “F—— you, Bob. F——
you! How dare you say such a thing about me!”
Further, any enlightenment which can be negated not only by the

consumption of alcohol (cf. Wilber, 2000a) but even by a bad cold (or
staph infection) is an interesting type of awakening: “I used to be
enlightened, but I caught the flu.” Indeed, that “fall” fully disproves
the idea that “Great Masters, having attained their own enlightenment,
meditate only for the good of others.” That is, if the “permanent” re-
alization of that highest evolution can be lost by something as seem-
ingly irrelevant as temporary bodily illness, meditative practice is ob-
viously being continued in order to maintain that state, regardless of
any sage’s protests that it is being done only “for others.”
Even without those concerns, however, the quantity of woefully
ignorant advice and self-serving misrepresentation dispensed by our
world’s “enlightened” individuals makes it impossible to ascribe any
actual inherent wisdom or intelligence-guided compassion to that
state. The dismal lack of commitment to reality in situations where it
does not flatter the “enlightened” figure should be another blatant red
flag in that regard. It should further underline the danger of subvert-
ing/surrendering one’s own judgment to the alleged “greater insight”
of such individuals. Indeed, that warning exists wholly independent of
arguments as to whether one is “childishly/blindly/submissively fol-
lowing” or “maturely/consciously surrendering and obeying” the
same figures. For, bad advice from others is best resisted regardless of
what one’s own flaws or present stage of psychological development
may be.
On top of all that, if there are a mere dozen “deeply enlightened”

Zen masters on the Earth right now, for example, that figure surely
pales in comparison to the thousands if not millions of people who
have had their lives devastated by the same paths—or even by the
very same stick-wielding “wise masters.” The fact that such followers
may too often lack the independence and initiative to realize how
much they have given up in thus being willingly mistreated does not
in any way excuse the actions of the “superior beings” who sit in au-
thority over them.
Following in the footsteps of such “sagely” individuals, then,
could hardly be a confident step toward alleviating even one’s own
suffering. Much less could it be a sensible means of enacting a bodhi-
sattva vow to liberate all others, for that same vow would surely im-
ply easing others’ suffering on the average, not increasing it.
Of what use is any future or enlightenment that does not re-

store a just and fully human world? (Marin, 1995).
By contrast, in cultivating our own independence, learning from

our own errors rather than “making other people’s mistakes,” and at-
tempting to understand how our own actions affect others, we may at
least know that we’re heading in the right direction as human beings.
That is so even if such a direction is, in practice, too often the exact
opposite of where the “spiritually enlightened” guru-figures of this
world, and their apologists, would have us obediently go.
Further, real life provides more than enough “learning experi-
ences” for each one of us, should we choose to take advantage of
those toward introspection and personal change. No one needs a guru-
figure or a constricting, independence-robbing ashram to fabricate
crises for that.
I described to my friends my own disillusionment with spiri-

tual practice, and my discovery that craving and greed infect
the spiritual life just as they do every other aspect of life.
“What I thought I was leaving behind,” I said, “I found right
here [at Kripalu]—the kleshas [afflictions], the erroneous be-
liefs, creating new spiritual knots” (Cope, 2000).
MAKE IT BETTER 535
As Butterfield (1994) then reasonably concluded, after years of

devotedly following Trungpa and his feudal/oligarchic/despotic suc-
cessor, Osel Tendzin:
I gave up trying to base personal relationships on dharma con-

sciousness, or the bodhisattva ideal, neither of which led to my
establishing an enduring bond with another human being. In-
stead I looked for what I could do at any given moment to re-
spect and care about myself and others, communicate honestly,
and live my needs and experiences as they actually arose, with
no thought that I was on a spiritual journey or had to bring eve-
rything to an all-consuming path.
Or, as Carlos Castaneda’s potential successor—who later wisely

repudiated that role—came to realize:
[M]y incursion in the world of Carlos Castaneda gave me

many things. It showed me the reality of relying on yourself
and not projecting your fantasies upon others. It showed me
that the only true magic is “ordinary magic” and that the most
important thing in life is the way we treat each other (Tony
Karam, in [Wallace, 2003]).
Deborah Boehm (1996; italics added), following her own experi-

ences with Zen Buddhism in Japan, likewise noted:
I realized now that any enlightenment I might ever attain

would come from living, from making mistakes, from thinking
things through, just as the most valuable lessons I had learned
in Kyoto about how to be a less-flawed mortal mammal took
place outside the meditation hall.
No new guru, no new religion, no new church or ostensibly

channeled readings are needed for that, nor is their presence even
beneficial toward real spiritual growth (whatever that might be).
Rather, it is simply up to each one of us to use our own independence
and intelligence to make the world a better place, and to make our-
selves better people, with or without taking up meditation on top of
that.
Monica Pignotti (1989) then opined, after spending half a decade

in Scientology:
I know that no one is going to give me the answers to life. I

now realize that I have a mind that is fully capable of guiding
me through the decisions I make in life and I will never put
anyone or anything above what I know and feel. I now know
the techniques that are [allegedly] used to control people’s
minds and that people exist in this world that have no com-
punction about using these techniques to manipulate people....
My life and my mind are now my own and I will never give
them up again.
Those are very hard lessons to learn for any man or woman who,
too trustingly, wants to believe in the “myth of the totally enlightened
guru.” But anyone who simply keeps questioning what he or she has
been told by the authorities on any spiritual path will eventually come
to exactly the same conclusions and resolve. It is inevitable, for the
long-extant reported information can lead to no other end.
So let each of us then go our own way, following our hearts, util-
izing unbiased, multi-perspectival reason to the best of our abilities,
and courageously speaking truth as best we can, regardless of whether
or not that fits into “the world according to” any “enlightened” sage’s
authoritarian view of reality.
That may not be a flawless way of proceeding but, after all that
we have seen herein, it couldn’t get much worse.
So let’s do what we can to make it better.
ESSENTIAL ONLINE
RESOURCES
OVERALL
If you value your mental and physical health, please don’t even con-
sider joining any nontraditional religion, with or without a guru-figure
at its helm, without having first researched it through these websites:
Freedom of Mind Center (Steven Hassan, author of Combatting Cult

Mind Control and Releasing the Bonds) —
www.freedomofmind.com
The Ross Institute — www.rickross.com
Cult News — www.cultnews.com
GuruRatings Yahoo! Group —
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GuruRatings
Sarlo’s Guru Rating Service — www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Map.htm
(some of Sarlo’s higher ratings should absolutely be downgraded
on the basis of the information presented throughout this book)
reFOCUS — www.refocus.org
International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), Cultic Studies
Review — www.csj.org
Ex-Cult Resource Center — www.ex-cult.org
537
Cult Information Centre (UK) — www.cultinformation.org.uk

Yahoo! Groups — www.groups.yahoo.com
MSN Groups — http://groups.msn.com
Flameout — www.flameout.org/flameout/gurus/index.html
BEWARE the Cult Awareness Network —

www.cultawarenessnetwork.org (this is now a “Scientology-
related” entity)
INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC SPIRITUAL LEADERS AND

ORGANIZATIONS
Adi Da — http://lightmind.com/library/daismfiles
Andrew Cohen — http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com

http://what-enlightenment-uncensored.blogspot.com
http://jekyllhyde.homepage.dk/home.html
Chinmoy — www.chinmoycult.com
Hare Krishnas — www.trancenet.org/krishna
Kriyananda, Ananda Church of Self-Realization —

www.anandainfo.com
www.anandauncovered.com
Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati — www.kashiashram.com
Maharaji, Divine Light Mission — http://ex-premie.org
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi — www.trancenet.org,

www.suggestibility.org
www.angelfire.com/cantina/donandmarcy/TM.html
Muktananda, SYDA — www.leavingsiddhayoga.net

ESSENTIAL ONLINE RESOURCES 539
Paramahansa Yogananda, Self-Realization Fellowship —

www.yogananda-dif.org
Cult Busters—SRF Division:
http://p208.ezboard.com/bcultbusterssrfdivision
SRF Walrus: www.angelfire.com/blues/srfwalrus
Kriya Yoga Discussion Board:
www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=Kriya
Satchidananda — http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/albania/148
Sai Baba — www.exbaba.com

www.snowcrest.net/sunrise
http://www.npi-news.dk/page152.htm
http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/index.htm
http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/index.html
Scientology — www.xenu.net
www.factnet.org
http://home.snafu.de/tilman
www.lisamcpherson.org
http://lisatrust.bogie.nl/home.htm
Zen — www.darkzen.com
For archives of sites which move or disappear: The Internet Archive

Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/collections/web.html)
APPENDIX
WILBER AND BOHM: AN ANALYSIS OF
THE PROBLEMS WITH KEN WILBER’S
“REFUTATIONS” OF DAVID BOHM’S IDEAS
Nobody is capable of producing 100% error—nobody is smart

enough to be wrong all the time (Wilber, 1999).
IN KEN WILBER’S THE EYE OF SPIRIT (1998), prefacing his criticism of

Jenny Wade’s (1996) appropriation of physicist David Bohm’s “im-
plicate order”-related ideas for her “holonomic” theory of conscious-
ness, we find the following assertion:
Bohm himself tended to realize the indefensible nature of his

position, and for a while he went through an awkward period
of adding implicate levels. There was the implicate level, then
the super-implicate level, then at one point, a super-super-
implicate level. And all of this, of course, was claiming to be
based on empirical findings in physics!
I published [1982] a strong criticism of Bohm’s position,
which has never been answered by him or any of [his] follow-
ers....
Until this critique is even vaguely answered, I believe we
must consider Bohm’s theory to be refuted. And, anyway, over
the last decade and a half it has generally fallen into wide-
spread disrepute (and it has no support whatsoever from recent
physics).
540
APPENDIX 541
In reprint (e.g., third) editions, “indefensible nature” has become

“inadequate nature”; “is even vaguely answered” has become “is an-
swered”; “theory to be refuted” has become “theory to be suspect”;
and “no support whatsoever from recent physics” has become “little
support from most physicists.”
So presumably, in the interim, someone did give a “vague an-
swer” to Wilber’s critique, pointing out to him that Bohm’s ideas
were not quite as “indefensible” as kw would have imagined them to
be. Also, that his objections to that reformulation of quantum theory,
based in its apparent failure to accommodate mysticism’s Great Chain
of Being, did not entirely “refute” it; and that his characterization of
its ostensible lack of support from real physics and physicists, too,
was overblown.
I will be addressing Wilber’s original bombast, rather than his
subsequently “weasel worded” version of the same, in what follows.
For, I do not believe that any of us should be required to purchase or
slough through every new edition of each of kw’s repetitive books,
just to see how he has tried to pull his foot halfway out of his mouth
in softening his previous bold misrepresentations of other people’s
ideas. The conclusions here will stand firm, regardless. Plus, as we
shall see, Wilber’s own attitude toward Bohm’s work, and corre-
sponding attempts to easily dismiss it, have not improved at all in his
other writings since then.
***
To begin, then, we note that the primary points in Bohm’s fully de-
veloped ontological/causal/deterministic formulation of quantum the-
ory, in terms of its relation to “holographic paradigms” and for distin-
guishing it from the orthodox indeterministic theory, are the follow-
ing:
1. The existence of an “explicate order,” comprised of any and

all observable matter, whether it be Newtonian or quantum;
and the corresponding existence of an “implicate order,” of
diffused wave-representations of matter overlapping one an-
other, from which the explicate order of apparently separate
particles arises
2. The existence of a “super-implicate order,” as a “super-infor-

mation field of the whole universe ... which organizes the first
level [of the implicate and explicate orders] into various
structures” (Bohm, in [Weber, 1986])
3. A “holographic” or “holomovement” nature to the universe,
in which every element of space and matter potentially con-
tains information about the whole universe
We will examine each of those components (plus Bohm’s related

“quantum potential”) in turn. In doing so we shall find, simply by
comparing “what Wilber said” to “what Bohm said,” that Wilber has
grossly misrepresented each of the three points above.
1. THE EXPLICATE AND IMPLICATE ORDERS
We are probably all familiar with Bohm’s colloquial “ink-drop in

glycerine” analogy, utilized toward his explanation of the implicate
order in his formulation of quantum theory. If not, the relevant device
consists of two concentric glass cylinders, with glycerine between
them, and drops of insoluble ink being placed into the glycerine as the
outer cylinder is turned. With that turning,
the droplet is drawn out [or “implicated” into the glycerine]

into a fine thread-like form that eventually becomes invisible.
When the cylinder is turned in the opposite direction the
thread-form draws back and suddenly becomes visible [or “ex-
plicated”] as a droplet essentially the same as the one that was
there originally (Bohm, 1980).
The relation of the often-misunderstood implicate order to the

explicate order could also be summarized as follows:
[Imagine] a wave that comes to focus in a small region of

space and then disperses. This is followed by another similar
wave that focuses in a slightly different position, then by an-
other and another and so on indefinitely until a “track” is
formed that resembles the path of a particle. Indeed the parti-
cles of physics are more like these dynamic structures, which
are always grounded in the whole from which they unfold and
APPENDIX 543
into which they enfold, than like little billiard balls that are
grounded only in their own localized forms (Bohm and Peat,
1987).
That contraction/unfoldment and subsequent dispersion/enfold-

ment, with the particle being visible/explicated only when its wave-
energy is highly concentrated at the transition between those two
processes, is exactly the means by which the implicate order mani-
fests as the explicate order. The explicate order is thus a subset of the
implicate order. That is, the two orders are not mutually exclusive, as
Bohm himself confirmed:
[T]he explicate order itself may be obtainable from the impli-

cate order as a special and determinate sub-order [i.e., a subset]
that is contained within it (in Hiley and Peat, 1987).
Up till now we have contrasted implicate and explicate orders,

treating them as separate and distinct, but ... the explicate order
can be regarded as a particular or distinguished case [i.e., a
subset] of a more general set of implicate orders from which
latter it can be derived [italics added]. What distinguishes the
explicate order is that what is thus derived is a set of recurrent
and relatively stable elements that are outside of each other
(Bohm, 1980).
Wilber (1982), however, has offered a different, and incorrect,

understanding of what Bohm has so clearly stated above:
Some writers use the implicate order as a metaphor ... of tran-

scendence. That is, the implicate realm is used as a metaphor
of higher-order wholeness or unity, referring, presumably, to
such levels as the subtle or causal.... The difficulty is that, as
originally explained by Bohm for the realm of physis, the ex-
plicate and implicate “entities” are mutually exclusive [italics
added]. The “ink-drop” particle is either unfolded and manifest
(explicate) or it is enfolded and unmanifest (implicate). It can-
not be both at the same time....
All of which is fine for the dimension of physis. But truly
higher levels are not mutually exclusive with lower ones—the
higher, as we said, transcend but include the lower.
Of course, “disproving the [ink-drop] analogy” would obviously

not necessarily say anything about the actual implicate and explicate
orders of quantum theory. Even aside from that, however, it is not
clear where the assertion that Bohm had “originally explained” that
the implicate and explicate entities (and thus orders) were “mutually
exclusive” could have come from, other than a disturbing lack of un-
derstanding, on Wilber’s part, of both the analogy and the actual
quantum orders themselves. For, we note that Bohm, by 1980, had
already published his explicit statement, quoted earlier, that the expli-
cate order is a “particular or distinguished case” or a subset of the
implicate, i.e., that they are not mutually exclusive. Bohm’s (1980)
work, where that statement can be found, is actually included in the
bibliography of Wilber (1998), where the latter’s assertion of “unan-
swered refutation” is given.
Much of Wilber’s (1982) critique, including the block quote im-
mediately above, was actually written in 1979. (Other interview-
related parts pertaining to that critique have their original copyright
from 1981.) That, however, still does not explain (or provide any ex-
cuse for) why Wilber did not correct those significant misstatements
prior to their collected 1982 publication. Nor does it account for why
he has not issued relevant written statements of correction in any of
his many publications in the decades since then.
The idea of the enfolding and unfolding of the implicate and ex-
plicate orders in physics has its mathematical basis in the “Green’s
function” of quantum wave mechanics (or via the “unitary transfor-
mation” in Heisenberg’s matrix formulation):
[W]hen I thought of the mathematical form of the quantum

theory (with its matrix operations and Green’s functions), I
perceived that this too described just a movement of enfold-
ment and unfoldment of the wave function. So the thought oc-
curred to me: perhaps the movement of enfoldment and un-
foldment is universal, while the extended and separate forms
that we commonly see in experience are relatively stable and
independent patterns, maintained by a constant underlying
movement of enfoldment and unfoldment. This latter I called
the holomovement (Bohm, in [Hiley and Peat, 1987]).
In the usual way of thinking, something like an implicate order

is tacitly acknowledged, but it is not regarded as having any
APPENDIX 545
fundamental significance. For example, processes of enfold-

ment, such as those described by the Green’s function, are as-
sumed to be just convenient ways of analyzing what is basi-
cally a movement in the explicate order, in which waves are
transmitted continuously through a purely local contact of
fields that are only infinitesimal distances from each other. In
essence, however, the main point of the implicate order is to
turn this approach upside down, and to regard the implicate or-
der as fundamental, while the explicate order is then under-
stood as having unfolded from the implicate order (Bohm and
Peat, 1987).
Even in the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum the-

ory, we have an alternating contraction and dispersion, or unfoldment
and enfoldment. For, every time the quantum wave function is “col-
lapsed” (by observation or whatnot) this is its sudden contraction.
After that, the wave function again begins to spread or disperse (in
“probability space” here, but still propagating via Green’s function),
until its next collapse/contraction. As such, the existence of that basic,
cyclic collapse/dispersion process in quantum theory—and thus of
“implicate”/enfolding and “explicate”/unfolding phenomena—is not
at all arguable. (Of course, the linear nature of Schrödinger’s equation
does not actually allow for such discontinuous behavior as would be
required in order for its wave-solutions to “collapse” instantaneously
[Bohm and Peat, 1987]. That, however, is a separate point/inconsis-
tency in the accepted view.)
[B]asically all the laws of movement in quantum mechanics do

correspond to enfoldment and unfoldment. In particular, the re-
lation between the wave function at one time ... and its form at
another [later] time ... is determined by the propagator or the
Green’s function....
A simple picture of the movement is that waves from the
whole space enfold into each region and that waves from each
region unfold back into the whole space....
Since all matter is now analyzed in terms of quantum
fields, and since the movements of all these fields are ex-
pressed in terms of propagators, it is implied by current physics
that the implicate order is universal (Bohm and Hiley, 1993;
italics added).
In any case, the observable motions of particles in both Newto-

nian and quantum physics are part of the same explicate order. Thus,
any attempt to associate quantum physics only with the “more wholis-
tic” implicate order would be woefully misled, as Bohm himself
noted:
Clearly the manifest world of common sense experience re-

fined where necessary with the aid of the concepts and laws of
classical physics is basically in an explicate order. But the mo-
tion of particles at the quantum level is evidently also in an ex-
plicate order (Bohm and Hiley, 1993; italics added).
All of that is fundamental and inherent to Bohm’s mature formu-

lation of quantum theory, and existed well prior to Wilber’s first tod-
dling comments on that in the late ’70s.
The explicate order is again a part or a subset of the whole im-
plicate order. That is, the latter implicate order transcends but in-
cludes the explicate order. Or, as Bohm again explicitly stated in
Hiley and Peat (1987), the explicate order is “contained within” the
implicate, not merely by analogy but by the mathematics of his onto-
logical formulation. (You cannot get much less “mutually exclusive”
than to have one thing contain another within itself.) And that inclu-
sion, of course, is exactly what Wilber wants higher levels of reality
to do with respect to their juniors, in accord with the theory and the-
ology underlying the perennial philosophy or Great Chain of Being.
So why, then, is kw such an unhappy camper whenever it comes
to Bohm’s genuinely brilliant ideas, as compared to his own? Wilber
could, after all, with minimal “transpersonalizing” of the physics, eas-
ily have taken those very concepts as largely supporting rather than
competing with his own, had he wished to properly represent them!
Of course, none of the above would make naïve, transpersonal
attempts to map astral-level prana (or the nondual Absolute) to the
implicate order, and physical matter to the explicate, any more valid.
(It could be said regardless, though, via Bohm’s “converging/dispers-
ing water wave” and ink-drop analogies, that the explicate order
“condenses out of” the implicate, as matter is believed to do from as-
tral prana.) It does, however, demonstrate that Wilber has fundamen-
tally misunderstood and grossly misrepresented Bohm’s ideas, here.
For again, nowhere did Bohm ever “originally explain” that the expli-
APPENDIX 547
cate and implicate orders are mutually exclusive, as kw wrongly

claims. Indeed, had Bohm ever done that, he would have been radi-
cally misunderstanding the most basic nature of his own Nobel-
caliber theories.
Even just in terms of the ink-drop analogy, there are an infinite
number of intermediate steps in which the drop is partly implicated,
and partly explicated. Thus, it was never a question of the drop being
either implicated or explicated, with those extreme states being for-
ever mutually exclusive, as Wilber dualistically imagines. Even the
existence of Bohm’s (1980) “implication parameter”—“the number of
turns required to bring a given droplet of dye into [fully] explicate
form”—would have disclosed as much.
2. THE SUPER-IMPLICATE ORDER
Regarding the existence of the super-implicate order, David Bohm, in

Weber (1986), has given the following information:
In talking of a super-implicate order, I am not making any fur-

ther assumptions beyond what is implied in physics today.
Once we extend this model of de Broglie to the quantum me-
chanical field rather than just to the particle, that picture im-
mediately is the super-implicate order. So this is not specula-
tion, it is the picture which is implied by present quantum me-
chanics if you look at it imaginatively.
Obviously, that solid basis cannot be reduced to the idea that

Bohm might have just been “making up new levels” as he went along,
even if the super-implicate order is itself reasonably regarded as being
merely part of a still-greater order, to not be “the last word” in that.
(The dialog from which the above block quote is drawn was first pub-
lished in ReVision in 1983, at a time when Wilber [1999b] himself
was still editing that journal.) There is thus precisely nothing “awk-
ward” about the chronological development of Bohm’s ideas, in him
“adding” those levels, as he himself explained (in Hiley and Peat,
1987):
[T]he original [holographic quantum mechanical particle the-

ory] model was one in which the whole was constantly en-
folded into and unfolded from each region of an electromag-
netic field, through dynamical movement and development of

the field according to the laws of classical field theory. But
now [i.e., in extending this model to the quantum mechanical
field], this whole field is no longer a self-contained totality; it
depends crucially on the super-quantum potential. As we have
seen, however, this in turn depends on the “wave function of
the universe” in a way that is a generalization of how the quan-
tum potential for particles depends on the wave function of a
system of particles. But all such wave functions are forms of
the implicate order (whether they refer to particles or to fields).
Thus, the super-quantum potential expresses the activity of a
new kind of implicate order [i.e., the super-implicate order].
That perspective then incorporates both the idea of the implicate

order being a “movement of outgoing and incoming waves,” and
Bohm’s original “causal” (or “hidden variable”) interpretation of
quantum theory. (The latter formulation was published in 1952, and
already contained the quantum potential term.)
The quantum potential appears when one is solving Schröding-
er’s equation in deriving the “WKB approximation” of quantum the-
ory, for example (see Chapter 3 of Bohm and Hiley [1993]). That
(mathematical) term is present immediately alongside the electro-
magnetic potential acting on the same system. And indeed, the quan-
tum potential, with an effect that does not drop off with increasing
distance, exerts a physical force on the matter in its vicinity, just as
does the electromagnetic potential. In neither case does matter “arise”
from such potentials, nor did the “original meaning” of the quantum
potential ever suggest that it might, in spite of Wilber’s (1982) mis-
understandings to the contrary:
[M]atter [possibly] arises from a physical energy-sea. This

seems to me the original meaning of Bohm’s ... quantum po-
tential.
The aforementioned super-implicate order, again, is a field

which determines the behavior of the particles of the (first) implicate
and the explicate orders. Although it is “the source from which the
forms of the first implicate order are generated” (Bohm and Peat,
1987), it is not simply “another level of enfolding/unfolding parti-
cles,” akin to another link in the perennial philosophy’s “Great Chain
APPENDIX 549
of Being.” (This will become highly relevant later on, regarding

Wilber’s use of his own misunderstandings in that regard to find addi-
tional fault with Bohm’s work.)
The super-implicate order makes the implicate order non-linear

and organizes it into relatively stable forms with complex
structures (Bohm, in [Weber, 1986]).
The essential flow [of explicated matter through time] is not

from one place to another but a movement within the implicate
and super-implicate ... orders. At every moment, the totality of
these orders is present and enfolded throughout all space so ...
they all interpenetrate (Bohm and Peat, 1987).
For the sake of completeness, and because Wilber (1982) has

mentioned its existence, Bohm had this to say about the super-super-
implicate order:
[A] little reflection shows that the whole idea of implicate or-
der could be extended in a natural way. For if there are two
levels of implicate order, why should there not be more? Thus
if we regard the super-implicate order as the second level, then
we might consider a third level which was related to the sec-
ond as the second is to the first. That is to say, the third impli-
cate order would organize the second which would thereby be-
come non-linear. (For example there might be a tendency for
the whole quantum state to collapse into something more defi-
nite) (Bohm and Hiley, 1993).
One would reasonably regard the keeping-open of those possi-

bilities as more of a logical and open-minded position than an “awk-
ward” one.
Note further that there is no correlation between Bohm’s “impli-
cation parameter” and the level of implicate order. That is, a greater
degree of dispersion of the ink-drop in the first implicate order does
not equate, even by analogy, to the super-implicate or higher-level
orders. If we were looking for a level which organizes the implicate
order in the ink-drop analogy, one loose option would be the person
turning the handle on the glycerine-filled device.
In any case, the super-implicate order itself, as Bohm explicitly

noted, does not require “any further assumptions beyond what is im-
plied in physics today.” That is, contrary to Wilber’s misled claims, it
most certainly is “based on empirical findings in physics.”
3. THE HOLOGRAPHIC NATURE OF (PHYSICAL) REALITY
As Bohm noted in Wilber (1982):
[A]ny form of movement could constitute a hologram, move-

ments known or unknown [i.e., even beyond mere physical vi-
brations] and we will consider an undefined totality of move-
ment, called the holomovement and say: the holomovement is
the ground of what is manifest.
As such, Bohm’s holomovement includes all possible implicate

orders, not only his first implicate order.
[T]his enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the

movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other
fields, such as the electronic, protonic, sound waves, etc. There
is already a whole host of such fields that are known, and any
number of additional ones, as yet unknown, that may be dis-
covered later. Moreover, the movement is only approximated
by the classical concept of fields (which is generally used for
the explanation of how the hologram works). More accurately,
these fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the
properties of discontinuity and non-locality (Bohm, 1980).
In no way, then, was the holographic structure of physical reality

merely an appealing metaphor grafted onto quantum theory by Bohm.
Even aside from that, the overall idea of there being a holo-
graphic nature to reality is most certainly supported by recent physics,
in particular in the realm of superstring or M-theory—the physicists’
best hope for a “Theory of Everything”:
[Dr. Juan] Maldacena’s work ... supports a hot new theory that
the universe is holographic.... In the Maldacena model, the
four-dimensional [quantum] field theory can be thought of as a
APPENDIX 551
holographic projection of the five-dimensional string theory

(Johnson, 1998).
[I]n certain cases, string theory embodies the holographic prin-

ciple (Greene, 2000).
Maldacena’s work regarding the holographic structure of quan-

tum gravity in superstring theory is by now “a firmly established
gravity/gauge theory” (Halbersma, 2002). Between that and Bohm’s
ideas, then, it would be difficult for anyone to confidently assert that
the physical universe is not holographic in its structure.
Whenever we are considering the nature of holograms in general,
however, the following misunderstanding seems to invariably come
up:
In the hologram, the sum total of the parts is contained in each

part (Wilber, 1982).
That idea, however is not accurate, as Bohm (italics added) ex-

plained earlier in the same book:
[I]t is characteristic of the hologram that if you illuminate a

part of the hologram you will get the information about the
whole picture but it will be less detailed and from less angles,
so the more of the hologram you take, the more detailed and
the more ample the information is always going to be.
Wilber (2003b), too, has recently come to understand that basic

principle.
It is therefore incorrect to say that every piece or part of a holo-
graphic plate contains all (i.e., the “sum total”) of the information
about the entire scene. Indeed, the need to illuminate the entire holo-
gram in order to get back all of the information enfolded into it fol-
lows from elementary laws of wave behavior, regardless of the type
of waves (sound, light, etc.) which are being used to create and then
display the hologram.
We have thus seen that Wilber’s claim that the implicate and ex-
plicate orders are mutually exclusive is not at all valid. Also, contrary
to kw’s assertions, Bohm’s super-implicate order was not merely an
arbitrary addition to his earlier work. And, we have very good reason
to regard reality as having a holographic structure. All of those distin-
guishing characteristics of Bohm’s work, further, are most certainly
“based on empirical findings in physics.”
***
“WIDESPREAD DISREPUTE”
[O]ver the last decade and a half [Bohm’s work] has generally
fallen into widespread disrepute (and it has no support whatso-
ever from recent physics).
We will consider that statement in two parts: first in terms of the

evolving reputation of Bohm’s ideas, and then with regard to the
documented support from recent physics for those same ideas. In do-
ing so, we shall see that Wilber has unabashedly misrepresented the
realities of both of those.
REPUTATION
It is not clear from the ambiguities in Wilber’s writing whether the

“disrepute” he is attributing to Bohm’s ideas refers merely to their
relation to fuzzy, transpersonal “holographic paradigms” in general,
or to serious physics. If the latter, consider the following:
Due largely to a 1994 Scientific American cover story and F.

David Peat’s Infinite Potential—The Life and Times of David
Bohm (1997), the means by which Bohm’s alternative quantum
theory had been effectively suppressed came to light, and the
general outlines of this alternative were finally presented to a
substantial reading public. This theory, developed in collabora-
tion with Prof. Basil Hiley and known in its mature form as the
“ontological interpretation” of quantum mechanics, is now
widely viewed as a serious critique of the Copenhagen inter-
pretation [italics added], and proffers a revisioning of quantum
theory in which objective reality is restored and undivided
wholeness is fundamental (Lee Nichol, in [Bohm, 2003]).
APPENDIX 553
The lack of “objective reality” in the orthodox interpretation was

indeed one of Einstein’s primary objections to it, even above its
“dice-playing,” indeterministic nature.
From a more hard-nosed perspective, consider the testimony of
Martin Gardner, one of the world’s more prominent skeptics. (Gard-
ner wrote the “Mathematical Games” column for Scientific American
for more than twenty-five years, and was largely responsible for
bringing knowledge of fractals to the masses via that medium in
1978.) Indeed, Gardner’s efforts at debunking New Age ideas have
earned him the praise of both Stephen Jay Gould and Noam Chom-
sky. Yet he had this to say about Bohm’s ontological formulation of
quantum mechanics:
[T]his theory, long ignored by physicists, is now gaining in-

creasing support. It deserves to be better known (Gardner,
Gardner there is endorsing the quantum potential aspect of

Bohm’s ideas, not the implicate and explicate orders which Bohm
found to exist in the mathematics of both the orthodox formulation
and in his own. Nevertheless, as far as support from physicists for
Bohm’s ideas goes, in Gardner’s wholly non-mystical regard that
very advocacy is increasing.
Likewise, Eric Dennis (2001; italics added) has noted that, con-
trary to past “almost maniacal” reactions to the “dissidents” in quan-
tum physics, and to Bohm in particular,
the last two decades have brought major changes.... Indeed,

there now seems to be increasing support among physicists for
exorcising the [Copenhagen interpretation-based] notion of ob-
server-created reality from the foundations of physical science.
Of course, if Wilber’s asserted “widespread disrepute” of

Bohm’s ideas was referring simply to the fading hopes of the “holo-
graphic paradigm” within transpersonal/integral psychology, he may
well be right about the increasing disrepute of that endeavor. For,
those attempts by his fellow transpersonal and integral psychologists
(not by Bohm) to split psychological stages or states of consciousness
between the implicate and explicate orders are indeed not worthy of
serious consideration.
Regardless, even widespread “ill repute” (whether in serious
physics, transpersonal/integral psychology, or both) would at most
show the temporary unpopularity of a theory, not say anything about
its truth-value. That is, given a community of intersubjective inter-
preters who have not bothered to properly understand the theory in
the first place, as has been the case with Bohm’s ideas in both physics
(Peat, 1997) and transpersonal/integral psychology, its degree of re-
pute or disrepute is wholly irrelevant. That, indeed, is even aside from
the separate problem that, as Max Planck noted three-quarters of a
century ago, new theories and paradigms gain acceptance not via any
force of logical persuasion in their arguments. Rather, they eventually
become accepted simply via the “old generation” of intersubjective
interpreters dying out.
Having said all that, though, we still cannot help but note that
both John S. Bell and Richard Feynman contributed papers, in ex-
plicit honor, celebration and good repute of Bohm and his work in
serious physics, to Hiley and Peat’s (1987) Quantum Implications. So
too did Geoffrey Chew, Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, Ilya Prigogine
and David Finkelstein. (Bell was the creator of Bell’s Inequality,
which he developed on the basis of Bohm’s work. Feynman was a
Nobel Prize winner, and heir to Einstein’s mantle of being regarded
as “perhaps the smartest man in the world.” He had little interest in
the fundamental issues of physics or philosophy, yet considered
Bohm to be a “great” physicist [Peat, 1997], deferring to the latter’s
expositions in their talks together.) That (1987) “book of good repute”
was, of course, published well within “the last decade and a half” of
Wilber’s (1998) initial quote, above.
SUPPORT
In terms of Wilber’s suggestion that Bohm’s ontological formulation,

with its implicate and explicate orders, has “no support whatsoever
from recent physics,” we can be even more categorical. For, there it is
very clear that he is referring to hard science, not to transpersonal/
integral psychology’s (mis)appropriation of Bohm’s ideas.
To begin, we note that the ontological formulation of quantum
theory, by the very manner of its derivation, will always be compati-
APPENDIX 555
ble with the orthodox theory. That is, any experimental results which
are in harmony with the orthodox theory will also accord with
Bohm’s reformulation. As such, there is no experiment for which the
orthodox theory could be “right,” and Bohm’s explanations “wrong”
(Bohm and Hiley, 1993).
Conversely, any experiment which supports orthodox quantum
theory—as every existing one has—will perforce also support
Bohm’s causal/ontological formulation. Therefore, Bohm’s view has
just as much “support from recent physics” in that regard as does the
orthodox quantum theory.
Alternatively, if the alleged “absence of support from recent
physics” derives from that idea that attempts to unify quantum theory
and general relativity via superstring or M-theory have thus far not
included the implicate/explicate order concepts, that position need
hardly be taken seriously. For, if the theorists working on M-theory
are only hoping to integrate the orthodox quantum theory, not Bohm’s
more-detailed formulation, into that “Theory of Everything,” then of
course the implicate/explicate order structure will not be openly
brought over into it, and thus not mentioned in relevant scholarly or
popularized literature! Integrating Bohm’s ontological formulation
into superstring theory would automatically integrate the orthodox
theory—since the ontological formulation mathematically simplifies
to the orthodox view—but not vice versa.
In any case, with or without that integration,
physicists have not as yet been able to make predictions [from

superstring theory] with the precision necessary to confront
experimental data....
Nevertheless ... with a bit of luck, one central feature of
string theory could receive experimental verification within the
next decade. And with a good deal more luck, indirect finger-
prints of the theory could be confirmed at any moment
(Greene, 2000).
Greene himself is not merely a popularizer of superstring theory,

but a professional physicist and significant contributor to it.
As to the state of recent physics outside of superstring theory, the
Nobel Prize-winner Sheldon Glashow—the “archrival of string theory
through the 1980s”—has admitted (in Greene, 2000) that, as of 1997,
non-string theorists [in conventional quantum field theory]

have not made any progress whatsoever in the last decade.
In terms of looking for “support from recent physics,” then, we

evidently have one half of physics which had not progressed in the
decade prior to Wilber’s (1998) denigration of Bohm—and thus has
nothing to say about “recent” developments in the field. On the other
hand, the superstring half of the profession has a theory which may,
“with a bit of luck,” be testable in one aspect of its core within a dec-
ade or so after that denigration!
Clearly, then, there is nothing within the recent developments in
physics to in any way gainsay Bohm’s ideas.
And how does orthodox quantum theory fare in the superstring
theorists’ “recent physics” view?
[M]any string theorists [who tend to be unfamiliar with the de-

tails of Bohm’s work] foresee a reformulation of how quantum
principles are incorporated into our theoretical description of
the universe as the next major upheaval in our understanding
(Greene, 2000; italics added).
After all that, we should now consider the relevance of Bohm’s

ideas to the deep understanding of fundamental issues in physics:
[D]espite the empirical equivalence between Bohmian me-

chanics and orthodox quantum theory, there are a variety of
experiments and experimental issues that don’t fit comfortably
within the standard quantum formalism but are easily handled
by Bohmian mechanics [i.e., by the ontological formulation of
quantum theory]. Among these are dwell and tunneling times,
escape times and escape positions, scattering theory, and quan-
tum chaos (Goldstein, 2002).
According to Richard Feynman, the two-slit experiment for

electrons [which clearly shows the wave-particle duality inher-
ent in quantum particles] is “a phenomenon which is impossi-
ble, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and
which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it
contains the only mystery.” This experiment “has been de-
signed to contain all of the mystery of quantum mechanics, to
APPENDIX 557
put you up against the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiari-

ties of nature one hundred per cent.” As to the question, “How
does it really work? What machinery is actually producing this
thing? Nobody knows any machinery. Nobody can give you a
deeper explanation of this phenomenon than I have given; that
is, a description of it.”
But Bohmian mechanics is just such a deeper explanation
(Goldstein, 2002).
Compare Feynman’s above presentation, from within the per-

spective of orthodox quantum theory, with J. S. Bell’s (1987; italics
added) explanation of the same experimental context, based on
Bohm’s formulation of quantum mechanics (which originated as an
extension of an idea first proposed independently by de Broglie in the
late 1920s):
De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, pass-

ing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influ-
enced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influ-
enced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out,
but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me
so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in
such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me
that it was so generally ignored. Of the founding fathers, only
Einstein thought that de Broglie was on the right lines.
If one is truly interested in understanding what is going on be-

neath phenomenological appearances in the physical universe, then,
one has no choice but to give an audience to formulations such as
Bohm’s. As such, whatever degree of “support” may be given or
withheld from Bohm’s ideas by “recent physics,” his ideas—and the
questions as to the basic nature of reality which he courageously and
insightfully asked—are absolutely relevant. Without such question-
ing, there is no hope of understanding how the universe really works,
in ways beyond the severe ontological limitations of the Copenhagen
interpretation (in which one is not allowed to ask “what happens” to
reality in between observations of it).
Taking all of that into account, the best that one can say about
the assertion (by Wilber) that Bohm’s ontological interpretation “has
no support whatsoever from recent physics” is that that idea itself is

wholly unsupportable.
***
One might hope that Wilber’s perspective on this subject had im-
proved in the twenty-plus years since his original “strong” critique of
Bohm. Unfortunately, however, such is not the case, as we can see
from his most recent (2003) writings. Those are posted online as part
of 200,000 words worth of “first draft” excerpts from the forthcoming
installments in his “Kosmos” trilogy:
[T]he simplistic and dualistic notion that there is, for example,
an implicate order (which is spiritual and quantum) and an ex-
plicate order (which is material and Newtonian) has caused
enormous confusion, and is still doing so. But even David
Bohm, who introduced that notion, eventually ended up tack-
ing so many epicycles on it that it became unrecognizable....
[I]f you absolutize physics ... then you will collapse the
entire Great Chain into merely one implicate and one explicate
order....
Bohm vaguely realized this—and realized that his “impli-
cate order,” precisely because it was set apart from the expli-
cate order, could not actually represent any sort of genuine or
nondual spiritual reality. He therefore invented a third realm,
the “super-implicate order,” which was supposed to be the
nondual spiritual realm. He then had three levels of reality: ex-
plicate, implicate, super-implicate. But because he was unfa-
miliar with the subtleties of Shunyata [i.e., trans-conceptual,
metaphysical “Emptiness”] ... he was still caught in dualistic
notions (because he was still trying to qualify the unqualifi-
able). He therefore added yet another epicycle: “beyond the
superimplicate,” to give him four levels of reality....
This is not the union of science and spirituality, but the
union of bad physics with bad mysticism.
At the risk of being overly repetitive, we again note the follow-

ing:
APPENDIX 559
1. At no point, going back to pre-1980, did Bohm ever regard

the implicate order as being “spiritual and quantum,” and the
explicate order as being “material and Newtonian.” It is
Wilber who has misread those orders as being mutually ex-
clusive or “dualistic.” For Bohm himself, on the other hand,
the explicate order was always a subset of the transcending/
including implicate order.
The localized explicate order is indeed more like the
“separate particles” of Newtonian physics, with the diffused
implicate order being more like the nonlocal interconnected-
ness of quantum theory. That fact, however, does not in any
way mean that one could ever equate the explicate order with
Newtonian physics, or the implicate order with quantum the-
ory.
By the “correspondence principle” in quantum mechan-
ics, quantum physics must reduce to classical, Newtonian
physics, when appropriate limits are taken. Thus, Newtonian
physics, too, is a subset of quantum theory, not something
mutually exclusive to it. Therefore, one could never coher-
ently associate quantum physics with the implicate order, and
Newtonian physics with the explicate, while simultaneously
claiming that those two orders are mutually exclusive.
Given Wilber’s insistent misconception that the impli-
cate and explicate orders are mutually exclusive, it is no sur-
prise that when he attempts, for purposes of argument, to map
degrees of subtly in (e.g., astral) matter, to levels of the im-
plicate order, he cannot do so. If he were to instead map those
subtleties, not to levels of implicate and super-implicate order
within the totality of such orders, but rather to a literal spec-
trum of frequencies of consciousness within an implicate/
explicate order which is not limited to the realm of physics
but includes subtle matter as well (cf. Bentov, 1977), he
would find that it works quite nicely.
Of course, whether higher states of consciousness and
subtler degrees of matter actually exist, or are mere artifacts
of psychoses or of other inabilities to distinguish between re-
ality and one’s own fantasies, is a separate question
2. Bohm’s super-implicate order is fully implied by current
physics, as is the implicate order conceptually below it. As
such, in no way was the former ever merely an arbitrary, epi-

cycle-like addition for the purpose of correcting inaccuracies
in the first level of the implicate order, as Wilber wrongly
suggests. The super-implicate order was thus “invented” by
Bohm only in a praiseworthy way of discovery, not a deroga-
tory one.
Further, none of those levels of implicate order were
ever equated with nondual Spirit in Bohm’s view. Rather,
Spirit as the highest state of consciousness (and immanent
ground of all lower states) was always beyond (but suffusing)
all levels of the (relatively unmanifest, but not transcendent
Unmanifest) implicate order:
Obviously, the nonmanifest that we talk about [i.e.,

the hierarchy of implicate orders] is a relative non-
manifest. It is still a thing, although a subtle thing....
[W]hatever we would mean by what is beyond matter
[e.g., Spirit] we cannot grasp in thought....
However subtle matter becomes, it is not true
[G]round of all [B]eing (Bohm, in [Wilber, 1982]).
Note again that the above statement comes from the very
same book which Wilber both edited and re-printed his own
initial “strong criticism” of Bohm in.
Bohm reasonably included consciousness, thought and
emotion within his own view of “matter” (of varying degrees
of subtlety), and as such placed them all within the implicate
order(s). Nondual Spirit, however, was always something be-
yond all such qualifiable orders, in his view. That is, it was
never merely the highest of Bohm’s implicate orders, even if
he occasionally spoke of those implicate orders “shading off”
into Unqualifiable Spirit
3. Wilber’s suggestion that Bohm’s development of gradations
or levels in the implicate order had anything to do with Bohm
trying to “qualify the unqualifiable” is wholly without valid-
ity. More specifically, the idea that Bohm’s ideas arose from
him being “unfamiliar with the subtleties of Shunyata” is
completely misplaced. Rather, Bohm’s understanding of the
APPENDIX 561
limitations of human “dualistic” thought was every bit as so-

phisticated as is Wilber’s:
[Y]ou may try to get a view of [S]pirit as the notion of

God as immanent. But both immanent [i.e., Spirit-as-
Ground] and transcendent God [Spirit-as-Source, i.e.,
the Unqualifiable] would have to be beyond thought
[and thus beyond mathematical expression in any im-
plicate order] (Bohm, in [Wilber, 1982]—again, the
very same book containing Wilber’s original critique
—italics added)
4. As far as Bohm’s brilliant ideas being “bad physics” goes, we

have already seen that numerous top-flight physicists (among
them Richard Feynman, J. S. Bell and Ilya Prigogine), whose
professional boots Wilber is not even fit to lick, have given a
more informed view. Their endorsements of Bohm’s ideas,
versus Wilber’s disparaging of the same, further have abso-
lutely nothing to do with Wilber possessing a nondual One
Taste realization or even an intellectual understanding of
spirituality which they might lack. Rather, those individuals
are simply professionals who understand physics at a level
which Wilber clearly does not. They are thus able to recog-
nize groundbreaking, sensible ideas in that field when they
see them. One may indeed rest fully assured that neither
Feynman nor Bell nor Prigogine would have respected
Bohm’s ontological formulation of quantum mechanics, had
that theory been full of arbitrary, epicycle-like ideas
5. When Bohm says that “the holomovement is the ground of
what is manifest” (in Wilber, 1982), he is not identifying it
with the (mathematically inexpressible) immanent Ground or
Suchness of the perennial philosophy. Rather, he is simply
viewing that movement as containing everything within
manifestation
6. Wilber himself has gone through numerous phases in his
thought, which are by now widely known as Wilber-1
through Wilber-4, with Wilber-5 already on the way.
Bohm’s thought, too, advanced through comparable stages,
even though it has never been categorized as “Bohm-1,” etc.
Wilber-2 was not merely a derogatory “epicycle” tacked onto

Wilber-1, and so on. The same tolerance should obviously
apply to one’s view of the sequential development of Bohm’s
levels of implicate order
Wilber’s improvements to his model of consciousness are

grounded in empirical research in psychology. Bohm’s levels of im-
plicate order, likewise, are certainly based on empirical research in
physics. Indeed, they are grounded in measurement to a far greater
degree of precision than one will find in any of Wilber’s own work,
or for that matter in anything extant in transpersonal psychology or
integral studies.
Bohm is thus guilty of neither “bad physics” nor of “bad mysti-
cism.” Wilber, however, is embarrassingly culpable, if not for both of
those, then for the worse repeated violence against a mere “straw
man” misrepresentation, created by no one but himself, of Bohm’s
ideas.
Amazingly, none of the points discussed here require an ad-
vanced understanding of physics or mathematics in order for one to
sort fact from fiction. Rather, all that they ever required was for one
to read Bohm’s self-popularized ideas carefully, and thus to properly
understand them.
Note further that, through all of this, no “interpretation” of
Bohm’s ideas is involved. Rather, all that one has to do is to look at
what Bohm actually said in print, and compare that with Wilber’s
presentation of the same ideas—often in the same (1982) book, no
less—to see the glaring distortions in the latter.
***
In writing this defense, I have been given pause to wonder why Bohm
himself never responded to Wilber’s original (and relatively well-
tempered, compared to the unkindness in [1998] and [2003]) critique.
For, nearly everything quoted throughout this paper was already pre-
sent in Bohm’s own published writings. Indeed, anything which
wasn’t already in print two decades ago could easily have been pro-
duced by him in writing “over a weekend.”
Bohm of course passed away in 1992, after having suffered ape-
riodic crippling depressions throughout his life, notably in the final
APPENDIX 563
decade of that. Yet through all that, he continued working on his own
thrillingly original ideas in both physics and metaphysics.
The answer most likely lies in Bohm’s overall attitude toward
productive dialog—applied just as well in his interactions with pro-
fessional physicists. Earlier in his life, arguments between Bohm and
his colleagues would occasionally escalate to shouting, heard all the
way down the corridors from his office. After one particularly bellig-
erent public confrontation, however, in a realization that he and his
opponent were not communicating, Bohm ceased that adversarial way
of working (Peat, 1997).
Also, as time wore on, Bohm’s ideas drifted ever-farther from
the mainstream in both physics and metaphysics. He thus predictably
encountered the additional problem of finding it extremely rare for
him to meet anyone with the open-mindedness and background nec-
essary for them to have a productive conversation. Rather, he would
have first needed to spend several days explaining his entire philoso-
phy and metaphysics, before any satisfying communication could oc-
cur.
One might then very reasonably relate Bohm’s non-responsive-
ness to Wilber’s demonstrated misunderstandings and distinctly in-
adequate background in physics to these same ideas, and indeed could
do so almost point by point. Bohm would, after all, have had to write
(if not talk) for at least several days, in explaining how Wilber had
misunderstood his work. And in doing so, unlike other writing in
which he passionately indulged, Bohm would have discovered few if
any new ideas for himself. Instead, that time would have necessarily
been spent just re-hashing what he had already explicitly and implic-
itly put into print, and which was thus already available for anyone
who cared to read his books and interviews with even a minimally
attentive eye.
In any case, as far as the lack of response to Wilber’s critiques
over the decade since Bohm’s death goes, few of Bohm’s admirers,
past or present, have had a background in both physics and metaphys-
ics. And overall, such a background is necessary in order for one to
understand Bohm’s ideas well enough to realize how drastically Wil-
ber has misrepresented them.
For the present purposes, as we have seen, all that one has to do
in order to see the relevant misrepresentations of Bohm’s work by
Wilber is to “A-B” Bohm versus Wilber. In doing so, one will again
readily recognize that where Bohm himself explicitly calls something

“white,” Wilber is claiming that Bohm has called it “black,” and then
deriding him for that, from no more than a “straw man” perspective of
Bohm’s work, which Wilber himself has solely created.
If there is one overarching point which we can take from all that,
then, it would be that ideas which have been proved “wrong” and
“impossible” by seemingly watertight logical argument today may
well be shown to be not merely possible but unavoidable tomorrow.
Conversely, arguing so persuasively in favor of wrong or grossly mis-
represented ideas that they seem to be inarguably correct can easily
do more harm than good in the service of truth. In such a case, merely
“doing one’s best” to spread one’s preferred gospel, whether integral
or otherwise, is in no way “good enough.”
At any rate, a “late” answer to a critique is better than none at
all; and the interim absence of the same should never have been con-
fidently taken as a sign that the bold misrepresentations of Bohm’s
brilliant and precise work, on Wilber’s unapologetic and inexcusably
sloppy (“Mountain of Inattention”) part, were unanswerable.
As Robert Carroll (2003) has noted, Wilber’s half-baked argu-
ments against Darwinian evolution “dismiss one of the greatest scien-
tific ideas ever in a few paragraphs” of what can only charitably be
called gross misrepresentations. (Carroll himself uses much stronger
language. Good for him.) And having gotten away with that sleight-
of-mind, kw does exactly the same thing to another of the truly
“greatest scientific ideas” ever—in Bohm’s Nobel-caliber reformula-
tion of quantum mechanics—in a comparable number of indefensibly
ignorant paragraphs.
And that, in Wilber’s world, evidently qualifies as not merely
“professional competence” but as “facing the Truth, no matter what
the consequences.”
As Bugs Bunny would say, “Whadda maroon!”
Interestingly, Albert Einstein himself—a man not prone to en-
dorsing “epicycles” or “simplistic notions”—considered David Bohm
to be his “intellectual successor” and “intellectual son” (Peat, 1997).
It was Einstein who had said, referring to the need for a radical
new quantum theory, “if anyone can do it, then it will be
Bohm.”
APPENDIX 565
That the often wrong, making-it-up-as-he-goes-along Wilber ut-

terly fails to see the clear-as-day reasons for all that is a sad comment
only on his own confident bumbling and thoroughly confused thought
and work.
Perhaps significantly, practically nowhere does Wilber ever
quote directly from (or provide page references for) the work he is
claiming to synthesize or critique. Instead, he throws out laundry lists
of scholars whose work ostensibly supports whatever point he may be
trying to make at the time. As a writing style for popularizing estab-
lished ideas, that would be one thing. And even when one is “bringing
hundreds of different psychological models into a coherent [sic] spec-
trum,” it may be partly understandable. For, the man’s books have
never tended toward the slim side, even with that relatively concise
approach. (I am well aware of the irony there—this being page 563—
thank you.)
Still, that method puts readers in the precarious position of hav-
ing to either trust kw to have properly represented other people’s
ideas—which the overwhelming majority of his admirers would in-
deed be fully, if naïvely, willing to do—or find the time to reproduce
the mounds of research themselves. In doing the latter, though, they
would be pitting themselves against an “Einstein,” who would surely
not have gotten to that high position of respect were his work not all
that it is claimed to be.
“Hundreds of the finest scholars [sic] in the world” have again
endorsed Wilber’s theories as being not merely valid but as ostensibly
possessing an unparalleled brilliance. Yet, having done even a modi-
cum of independent research, one finds that kw is demonstrably
grossly misrepresenting the work of others to suit his own needs. That
is, as we have seen, he is grossly misunderstanding Darwin’s ideas,
nastily disparaging Bohm’s, unintentionally bludgeoning Spiral Dy-
namics at even a “novice” level, probably twisting Aurobindo’s
views, and apparently alternately falsely presenting (re: archetypes)
and ignoring (re: pre/trans distinctions) Jung’s.
Those, of course, are only the known problems with Wilber’s
representations of others’ work. And note that none of those issues
arise merely from him “picking and choosing” the work from any
given field which supports his own ideas, while ignoring other aca-
demics—something he has also been informally accused of doing.
Rather, in all of the above cases, kw has demonstrably grossly mis-
represented the work of others, while claiming that it either supported

his, or was allegedly “wrong” and thus failed to buttress his own.
There may well be other issues along that line. There may well
be many other issues, both of active misrepresentation and of selec-
tive inclusion/exclusion, in kw’s integral forays into psychology,
physics, history, education, politics, ecology, etc. Indeed, would it not
be odd, by now, if there weren’t additional problems? Any betting
man or woman....
Thankfully, though, “nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the
time.”
Is he?
Note: I submitted (and received confirmation of receipt for) a slightly

less polished (and less spicy) version of this paper to The Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, for peer/leprechaun review, in November of
2003. That process “generally takes 6+ months.” As of March, 2005, I
have yet to receive a verdict from them as to whether properly researched
and coherent ideas such as these have a place among their other “make
believe” theorizings. Nor am I optimistic about that status changing.
No surprise, then, that there are so few published criticisms of
Wilber’s work, if that is what happens to even the most thorough of
them. (Compare also de Quincey’s claimed experiences with the “Wilber
police.”)
But all of that is hardly surprising. For, as they say on the South
Park campus of Integral University: “You bastard! You killed [our defer-
ential regard for] Kenny!”
A little rational thought, a little competent research, a little ques-
tioning of their heroes, and they run away from documented uncompli-
mentary facts like a bunch of frightened little ninny bunnies. And that, of
course, only makes one wonder all the more what full quantity of sanc-
tioned idiocy they may be hiding from rational scrutiny amongst their
leprechauns, courses in imagined “miracles,” “verified mediums,” and
“Einsteins” who cannot even get high-school-level ideas right.
Can transpersonal and integral “scholars” really be so deeply fearful
of the possibility that to think clearly about what they believe might
cause it—and their own related professional standings and denial-based
hopes for enlightenment—to fall completely apart, that they will tolerate
no debate at all? Isn’t truth supposed to be able to stand up to the fiercest
APPENDIX 567
questioning and still emerge shining from that, rather than needing to be
sheltered from debate in the covert darkness of transpersonal ignorance?
If the pretend-academics in transpersonal and integral psychology,
from the nastily “compassionate” bumbling “genius” Wilber on down,
really want to “deal with the Truth, no matter what the consequences”....
But then, that’s really the last thing they want to have to deal with,
isn’t it?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
With many of these books being out of print, I have found the
used book emporium at www.abebooks.com to be invaluable
for my own research.
Aarons, Mark and John Loftus (1998 [1991]), Unholy Trinity: The
Vatican, The Nazis, and the Swiss Banks (New York: St. Martin’s
Griffin).
Adams, Cecil (2004), “The Straight Dope” (www.straightdope.com).
Adriel, Jean, (1947), Avatar: The Life Story of Avatar Meher Baba
(Berkeley, CA: John F. Kennedy University Press).
Agence France-Presse (1999), “Australian Teenager Sent Threat via

Charles Manson,” March 22
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/manson/manson13.html).
Alexander, Charles and E. Langer, ed. (1990), Higher Stages of

Human Development (New York: Oxford University Press).
Alexander, Meredith (2001), “Thirty Years Later, Stanford Prison

Experiment Lives On,” in Stanford Report, August 22
(http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/august22/prison2-822.html).
568
BIBLIOGRAPHY 569
Allegro, John M. (1970), The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross:

Fertility Cults and the Origins of Judaism and Christianity (New
York: Doubleday & Co.).
Allen, Charlotte (2001), “The Scholars and the Goddess,” in Atlantic

Monthly, January
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/wicca/wicca31.html).
Allen, John L., Jr. (2004), All the Pope’s Men: The Inside Story of
How the Vatican Really Thinks (New York: Doubleday).
Alter, Rabbi (2004), “Ask Rabbi Alter” (http://web.archive.org/web/

20040216042603/http://www.jewmich.com/askthe.htm).
Ammachi (2004), “Amma”

(http://www.ammachi.org/amma/index.html).
Amritanandamayi, Mata (1994), For My Children (San Ramon, CA:

Mata Amritanandamayi Center).
Anandamoy, Brother (1995), Spiritual Marriage (Los Angeles:

Self-Realization Fellowship).
Anandamoy, Brother (1982), Is Peace Possible in Today’s World?

(Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship).
Anandamoy, Brother (1979), Closing the Generation Gap

Ananthanarayanan, N. (1970), The Inspiring Life-Story of Swami

Sivananda (New Delhi: Indraprastha Press).
Anthony, Dick, Bruce Ecker and Ken Wilber (1987), Spiritual

Choices: The Problem of Recognizing Authentic Paths to Inner
Transformation (New York: Paragon House).
Appel, Willa (1985 [1983]), Cults in America: Programmed for

Paradise (New York: Henry Holt & Company).
Areddy, James T. (1989), “Sri Chinmoy Seeks to Claim a Title: Stunt

Man Supreme,” in The Wall Street Journal, January 13
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/srichinmoy/srichinmoy9.html).
Arendt, Hannah (1992 [1963]), Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on

the Banality of Evil (New York: Penguin Books).
Arya, Rohit (2004), “Paramahansa Yogananda—Reports from the

Inside of Indian Spirituality”
(http://www.indiayogi.com/content/indsaints/yogananda.asp).
Askenasy, Hans (1978), Are We All Nazis? (Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart
Inc.).
Associated Press (2003), “Celebrities Push for Transcendental

Meditation Center in L.A.”
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm59.html).
Associated Press (1991), “Swami’s Former Followers Say He

Demanded Sexual Favors,” August 2
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/yogaville/yogaville9.html).
Atack, Jon (1992), The Total Freedom Trap: Scientology, Dianetics

and L. Ron Hubbard (http://www.factnet.org/Books/
TotalFreedomTrap/TFTrap.html?FACTNet).
Atack, Jon (1990), A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and

L. Ron Hubbard Exposed (New York: Carol Publishing Group; text
available online at http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/apobs/).
Atwood, Kimball C. (2003), “The Ongoing Problem with the

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine,” in
Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 27, No. 5, September
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-09/alternative-medicine.html).
Aurobindo, Sri (1953), Sri Aurobindo on Himself and on the Mother

(Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 571
Austin, Bill (1999), “Rev. Thomas Alhburn, Writer of Endorsements,

Finally Meets Da”
(http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/alhburn-leela.html).
Baba, Meher (1967), Discourses (San Francisco, CA: Sufism

Reoriented).
Baba, Upasani (1978), The Talks of Sadguru Upasani-Baba

Maharaja, Volume 2, Part B (Sakori, India: Upasani Kanyakumari
Sthan).
Bailey, David and Faye Bailey (2003), The Findings

(http://web.archive.org/web/20031214164954/http://
www.npi-news.dk/page152.htm).
Baker, Robert A. (2000), “Can We Tell When Someone is Staring at

Us?” in Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 24, No. 2, March/April
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html).
Barry, Dave (1992), Dave Barry Does Japan (New York: Random
House).
Bart, Peter (1998), “Defenders of the Faith Should Stand at Ease,” in

Daily Variety, June 27 (http://www.rickross.com/reference/
scientology/celebrities/celebrities1.html).
BBC (2003), “The Conquest” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/

sceptred_isle/page/8.shtml?question=8).
Beck, Don (2005), “Don Beck: ‘You’re Bottom Dwellers!’”

(http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com/2005/01/
don-beck-youre-bottom-dwellers.html).
Behar, Richard (1991), “The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power,” in

Time, May 6
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien413.html).
Belfrage, Sally (1981), Flowers of Emptiness: Reflections on an

Ashram (New York: The Dial Press).
Bell, John S. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum

Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Bellamy, Dodie (1995), “Eckankar: A Former Member Revisits the

Movement,” in San Diego Reader
(http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/dodie.html).
Bentov, Itzhak (2000), A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness

(Rochester, VT: Destiny Books).
Bentov, Itzhak (1977), Stalking the Wild Pendulum (Rochester, VT:

Destiny Books).
Berard, Marc (2001), “Woo Woo Science: A Review of The Living

Energy Universe by Gary Schwartz and Linda Russek,” in Skeptic,
Volume 8, No. 3 (http://www.skeptic.com/archives47.html).
Berge, Edward (2004), “Who Decides What Wilber Means?”

(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/berge.html).
Berry, Jason (1992), Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests

and the Sexual Abuse of Children (New York: Doubleday).
Berry, Jason and Gerald Renner (2004), Vows of Silence: The Abuse
of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II (New York: Simon &
Schuster).
Berzin, Alex, tr. and ed. (1978), The Mahamudra (Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives).
Beyerstein, Dale (1994), Sai Baba’s Miracles: An Overview

(http://www.exbaba.de/files/A_Critical_Study.html).
Bhajan, Yogi (1977), The Teachings of Yogi Bhajan: The Power of

the Spoken Word (Pomona, CA: Arcline Publications).
Bharati, Agehananda (1980), The Ochre Robe: An Autobiography

(Santa Barbara, CA: Ross-Erikson).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 573
Bharati, Agehananda (1976), The Light at the Center (Santa Barbara,

CA: Ross-Erikson).
Bharati, Agehananda (1974), “Fictitious Tibet: The Origin and

Persistence of Rampaism,” in Tibet Society Bulletin, Volume 7
(http://www.serendipity.li/baba/rampa.html).
Blacker, Hal (2001), “Enlightenment’s Divine Jester Mr. Lee

Lozowick,” in What Is Enlightenment? Issue 20
(http://www.wie.org/j20/lee.asp).
Blacker, Hal (1996), “The Kramer Papers: A Look Behind the Mask
of Antiauthoritarianism,” in What Is Enlightenment? Issue 9
(http://www.wie.org/j9/kramer.asp).
Blackmore, Susan (1986), The Adventures of a Parapsychologist

(Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books).
Blackmore, Susan (1983), “Are Out-of-Body Experiences Evidence

for Survival?” in Anabiosis—The Journal for Near-Death Studies,
Volume 3
(http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/Anabiosis 1983.htm).
Blanco, Jodee (2000), The Complete Guide to Book Publicity (New

York: Allworth Press).
Blass, Thomas (2004), The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life
and Legacy of Stanley Milgram (New York: Basic Books).
Blavatsky, Helena P., edited by Elizabeth Preston and Christmas

Humphreys (1967), An Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine
(Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House).
Blofeld, John (1970), The Tantric Mysticism of Tibet: A Practical

Guide (New York: E. P. Dutton).
Bob, Sri (2000), The Knee of Daism: Deconstructing Adi Da

(http://lightmind.com/Impermanence/Library/knee/).
Boehm, Deborah Boliver (1996), A Zen Romance: One Woman’s

Adventures in a Monastery (New York: Kodansha International).
Bohm, David (2003), The Essential David Bohm (New York:

Routledge).
Bohm, David (1980), Wholeness and the Implicate Order (New York:
Routledge).
Bohm, David (1973), “Quantum Theory as an Indication of a New

Order in Physics—Implicate and Explicate Order in Physical Law,”
in Physics (GB), 3.2, June.
Bohm, David and Basil J. Hiley (1993), The Undivided Universe

(New York: Routledge).
Bohm, David and F. David Peat (1987), Science, Order, and

Creativity (New York: Bantam Books).
Bonder, Saniel (2003), “Waking Down in Mutuality”

(http://www.wakingdown.org).
Bonder, Saniel (1990), The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher

(Clearlake, CA: The Dawn Horse Press).
Bose, Nirmal Kumar (1974), My Days with Gandhi (New Delhi:

Orient Longman Limited).
Bostock, Cliff (1998), “Guru with a Schtick: An Interview with Ma

Jaya,” in Creative Loafing, April 18
www.soulworks.net/writings/paradigms/site_027.html).
Boston Globe, Investigative Staff of the (2003), Betrayal: The Crisis

in the Catholic Church (New York: Little, Brown & Company).
Braun, Kirk (1984), Rajneeshpuram: The Unwelcome Society—

“Cultures Collide in a Quest for Utopia” (Medford, OR: Scout Creek
Press).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 575
Brennan, Barbara Ann (1993), Light Emerging: The Journey of

Personal Healing (Toronto: Bantam Books).
Brennan, Barbara Ann (1987), Hands of Light: A Guide to Healing

Through the Human Energy Field (Toronto: Bantam Books).
Brent, Peter (1972), Godmen of India (London: Allen Lane).
Brewer, Mark (1975), “‘We’re Gonna Tear You Down and Put You
Back Together,’” in Psychology Today, August
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/est/estpt8.html).
Brooke, Tal (1999 [1990]), Avatar of Night: Special Millennial

Edition (Berkeley, CA: End Run Publishing).
Brown, Mick (2000), “Divine Downfall,” in The Daily Telegraph

Saturday Magazine, October 27
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/saibaba/saibaba3.html).
Browning, Christopher R. (1998 [1992]), Ordinary Men: Reserve

Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (New York:
HarperPerennial).
Bruni, Frank and Elinor Burkett (2002 [1993]), A Gospel of Shame:

Children, Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church (New York:
Perennial).
Brunton, Paul (1935), A Search in Secret India (New York: E. P.

Dutton & Co., Inc.).
Bugliosi, Vincent and Curt Gentry (1975), Helter Skelter (New York:
Bantam Books).
Burke, Abbot George (1994), An Eagle’s Flight: Autobiography of a

Gnostic Orthodox Christian (Geneva, NE: Saint George Press).
Burroughs, William S. (1995 [1972]), Ali’s Smile/Naked Scientology

(Bonn, Germany: Expanded Media Editions).
Burroughs, William S. (1974), The Job: Interviews with Williams S.

Burroughs by Daniel Odier (New York: Penguin Books).
Buswell, Robert E. (1992), The Zen Monastic Experience: Buddhist

Practice in Contemporary Korea (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press).
Butler, Katy (1990), “The Shadow of Buddhist America,” in Common

Boundary, May-June.
Butler, Katy (1985a), “Sex Practices Did Not Cease, Marin Cult
Officials Admit,” in San Francisco Chronicle, April 9
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/adida/adida9.html).
Butler, Katy (1985), “Guru’s Fiji Haven Called ‘Paradise,’” in San

Francisco Chronicle, April 5
Butterfield, Stephen T. (1994), The Double Mirror: A Skeptical

Journey into Buddhist Tantra (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books).
Caddy, Eileen (1976), Foundations of Findhorn (Forres, Scotland:

Findhorn Publications).
Campbell, June (1996), Traveller in Space: In Search of Female

Identity in Tibetan Buddhism (New York: George Braziller).
CANDER (2001), “Latest News”

www.savemtwashington.org/).
Caplan, Mariana (2002), Do You Need a Guru? (London: Thorsons).
Caplan, Mariana (2001), Halfway Up the Mountain: The Error of

Premature Claims to Enlightenment (Prescott, AZ: Hohm Press).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 577
Carlson, Peter (2002a), “Chakra Full of Scandal: Baring the Yogis,”

in Washington Post, August 27 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/
wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64895-2002Aug26
&notFound=true).
Carlson, Peter (2002), “Taking a Yogic Flier on ‘Peace Bonds,’” in

Washington Post, August 29
Carnahan, Sumner (1995), In the Presence of My Enemies (Santa Fe,

NM: Heartsfire Books).
Carroll, Robert T. (2004e), “Jean Houston and The Mystery School,”

in The Skeptic’s Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/houston.html).
Carroll, Robert T. (2004d), “Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner (1861 –

1925), and Waldorf Schools,” in The Skeptic’s Dictionary
(http://www.skepdic.com/steiner.html).
Carroll, Robert T. (2004c), “Firewalking,” in The Skeptic’s

Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/firewalk.html).
Carroll, Robert T. (2004b), “Incorruptible Bodies,” in The Skeptic’s

Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/incorrupt.html).
Carroll, Robert T. (2004a), “Cold Reading,” in The Skeptic’s

Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html).
Carroll, Robert T. (2004), “Alien Abductions,” in The Skeptic’s

Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/aliens.html).
Carroll, Robert T. (2003), “The Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter 38”

(http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html).
Castro, Stephen J. (1996), Hypocrisy and Dissent Within the

Findhorn Foundation: Towards a Sociology of a New Age
Community (Forres, Scotland: New Media Books).
Chadwick, David (1999), Crooked Cucumber: The Life and Zen

Teachings of Shunryu Suzuki (New York: Broadway Books).
Chadwick, David (1994), Thank You and OK! An American Zen

Failure in Japan (New York: Penguin/Arkana).
Charlton, Hilda (1990), Hell-Bent for Heaven: The Autobiography of

Hilda Charlton (Woodstock, NY: Golden Quest).
Chatterjee, Aroup (2003), Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict

(Kolkata: Meteor Books; full text available online at
http://www.meteorbooks.com).
Chelishev, E. (1987), “Swami Vivekananda—The Great Indian

Humanist, Democrat and Patriot,” in Harish C. Gupta, ed. (1987),
Swami Vivekananda Studies in Soviet Union (Calcutta: Ramakrishna
Mission Institute of Culture).
Chew, Sally (1998), “Paradise Lost,” in Out Magazine, December/

January (http://leavingsiddhayoga.net/homophobia_in_sy.htm).
Chinmoy, Sri (1985), The Master and the Disciple (Jamaica, NY:
Agni Press).
Chinmoy, Sri (1978), Meditation: Man-Perfection in

God-Satisfaction (Jamaica, NY: Aum Publications).
Chopra, Deepak (2000), How to Know God: The Soul’s Journey into
the Mystery of Mysteries (New York: Harmony Books).
Chopra, Sonia (1999), “Satchidananda’s Yoga Ashram Caught Up in

a New Controversy, Past Sexual Charges Begin Resurfacing,” in
Rediff on the Net, June
Christopher, Milbourne (1975), Mediums, Mystics, & the Occult

(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 579
Christopher, Milbourne (1970), ESP, Seers & Psychics (New York:

Thomas Y. Crowell Co.).
Churchill, Pola (1996), Shiva Mahavatar Babaji (Beverly Hills, CA:

Churchill Publishing Co.).
Cialdini, Robert B. (2001), Influence: Science and Practice (Toronto:

Allyn and Bacon).
Clark, Tom (1980), The Great Naropa Poetry Wars (Santa Barbara,
CA: Cadmus Editions).
Clayson, Alan (1996 [1990]), The Quiet One: A Life of George

Harrison (London: Sanctuary Publishing Limited).
Cloud, David W. (2000), “Elvis Presley: The King of Rock & Roll”
(http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/elvispresley.htm).
Cohen, Andrew (2005), “Endorsements for What Is Enlightenment?

Magazine” (http://www.andrewcohen.org/pressroom/
WhatIsEnlightenmentquotes.asp).
Cohen, Andrew (2002), Living Enlightenment (Lenox, MA: Moksha

Foundation).
Cohen, Andrew (2001a), “From What Is to What Ought to Be,” in

What Is Enlightenment? Issue 19 (http://www.wie.org/j19/lerner.asp).
Cohen, Andrew (2001), “Don’t Ask Why—Just Do Something,” in

What Is Enlightenment? Issue 19
(http://www.wie.org/j19/majaya.asp).
Cohen, Andrew (2000a), “Yoga, Ego and Purification,” in What Is

Enlightenment? Issue 17 (http://www.wie.org/j17/desai.asp?page=1).
Cohen, Andrew (2000), Embracing Heaven & Earth (Lenox, MA:

Moksha Foundation).
Cohen, Andrew (1999a), “‘I CAN’ vs. ‘I AM’: What is the

Relationship Between Self-Mastery and Enlightenment?” in What Is
Enlightenment? Issue 15 (http://www.wie.org/j15/andrew.asp).
Cohen, Andrew (1999), In Defense of the Guru Principle (Lenox,

MA: Moksha Foundation).
Cohen, Andrew (1992), Autobiography of an Awakening (Corte

Madera, CA: Moksha Foundation).
Cohen, Andrew (1989), My Master is My Self (Larkspur, CA: Moksha

Foundation).
Cohen, Susan (2002a), “Swami Satchidananda, Integral Yoga

Institute, Yogaville—A Survivor’s Story,” August 31
Colin, Molly, Peter Seidman and Tony Lewis (1985), “Defectors

Voice Several Charges,” in Mill Valley Record, April 3
Colman, E. A. M. (1974), The Dramatic Use of Bawdy in

Shakespeare (London: Longman Group Limited).
Conway, Flo and Jim Siegelman (1982), “Information Disease: Have

Cults Created a New Mental Illness?” in Science Digest, January
(excerpt at http://www.amazing.com/scientology/
cos-mind-control.html?FACTNet).
Conway, Flo and Jim Siegelman (1978), Snapping: America’s

Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change (New York: J. B. Lippincott
Company).
Cooper, Paulette (1997), “Harassment Diary”

(http://www.lermanet.com/cos/cooperdiary.htm?FACTNet).
Cooper, Paulette (1971), The Scandal of Scientology (New York:

Tower Publications, Inc.; full text available online at
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 581
Cooperman, Alan (2005), “Harassment Claims Roil Habitat for

Humanity” (http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/
story/2194735p-8576011c.html).
Cope, Stephen (2000), Yoga and the Quest for the True Self (New
York: Bantam Books).
Cornell, Judith (2001), Amma: Healing the Heart of the World (New
York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.).
Cornwell, John (1999), Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII
(New York: Viking).
Corydon, Bent and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (1998 [1987]), L. Ron

Hubbard: Messiah or Madman? (Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart Inc.; full
text online at http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/mom/
Messiah_or_Madman.txt).
Cowan, Christopher (2005a), “Response to Ken Wilber’s Response to

‘The Missing Links’ of Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber, a Posting
by Bill Moyer on the Post-Conventional Politics (Post-Con Pol)
Discussion List”
(http://www.spiraldynamics.org/learning/response_to_wilber.htm).
Cowan, Christopher (2005), “What about Ken Wilber’s Use of SD

and Graves?”
(http://www.spiraldynamics.org/learning/faq.htm#Wilber).
Cowan, Christopher (2002), “Boomeritis or Bust...”

(http://www.spiraldynamics.org/reviews/boomeritis_or_bust.html).
Da, Adi (1995), The Knee of Listening: The Early-Life Ordeal and the
Radical Spiritual Realization of the Divine World-Teacher
(Middletown, CA: The Dawn Horse Press).
DaBase (2000), “The Library of Congress”

(http://web.archive.org/web/20040211061806/http://dabase.org/
LOCCC.htm).
Dakota (1998), “Paramahansa Yogananda: A Different Light”

(http://www.yogananda-dif.org).
Dalal, A. S., ed. (2000), A Greater Psychology: An Introduction to the

Psychological Thought of Sri Aurobindo (Los Angeles: Jeremy P.
Tarcher).
Daniélou, Alain (1987), The Way to the Labyrinth: Memories of East

and West (New York: New Directions).
Darwin, Charles (1962), The Origin of Species (London:

Collier-MacMillan, Ltd.).
Das, Bhagavan (1997), It’s Here Now (Are You?) (New York:
Broadway Books).
Das, Sushi (2003), “Hardly Krishna,” in The Age (Australia),

June 2 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/02/
1054406108753.html).
Dass, Ram (2000), Still Here: Embracing Aging, Changing, and

Dying (New York: Riverhead Books).
Dass, Ram (1990), Journey of Awakening: A Meditator’s Guidebook

(New York: Bantam).
Dass, Ram (1979), Miracle of Love: Stories About Neem Karoli Baba
(New York: E. P. Dutton).
Dass, Ram (1971), Be Here Now (San Cristobal, NM: Lama

Foundation).
Dass, Ram and Stephen Levine (1977), Grist for the Mill (Santa Cruz,
CA: Unity Press).
Davis, Roy Eugene (2000), Seven Lessons in Conscious Living

(Lakemont, GA: CSA Press).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 583
Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence

of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company).
De Quincey, Christian (2001), “Critics Do. Critics Don’t: A Response

to Ken Wilber” (http://deepspirit.com/sys-tmpl/replytowilber).
De Quincey, Christian (2000), “The Promise of Integralism: A

Critical Appreciation of Ken Wilber’s Integral Psychology”
(http://www.deepspirit.com/sys-tmpl/thepromiseofintegralism/).
Dennis, Eric (2001), “Quantum Mechanics and Dissidents,” in

Objective Science, April
(http://objectivescience.com/articles/ed1_quantum_dissidents.htm).
DeRopp, Robert S. (1968), The Master Game: Pathways to Higher

Consciousness Beyond the Drug Experience (New York: Dell
Publishing Co., Inc.).
Desai, Yogi Amrit (1985), Working Miracles of Love (Lenox, MA:

Kripalu Publications).
Desai, Yogi Amrit (1981), Kripalu Yoga: Meditation-in-Motion

(Lenox, MA: Kripalu Publications).
Dhargyey, Geshe Ngawang (1974), Tibetan Tradition of Mental

Development (Library of Tibetan Works and Archives).
Disciples, Eastern & Western (1979), The Life of Swami Vivekananda

(Mayavati: Advaita Ashrama).
Dittmann, Melissa (2003), “Lessons from Jonestown,” in APA

Monitor, Volume 34, No. 10, November
(http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/jonestown.html).
Downing, Michael (2001), Shoes Outside the Door: Desire, Devotion,

and Excess at San Francisco Zen Center (Washington, DC:
Counterpoint).
Doyle, Thomas P. (2003), “Roman Catholic Clericalism, Religious

Duress, and Clergy Sexual Abuse,” in Pastoral Psychology, Volume
51, No. 3, January.
Doyle, Thomas P. (2002), “They Still Don’t Get It and Probably

Never Will,” in Irish Times, March 22.
Dreyer, Peter (1975), A Gardener Touched with Genius (New York:

Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc.).
Dutt, Anuradha (1988), “The Troubled Guru,” in The Illustrated

Weekly of India, July 17 (http://www.trancenet.org/news/weekly/).
Dykema, Ravi (2003), “An Interview with Sakyong Mipham

Rinpoche,” in Nexus
(http://www.nexuspub.com/articles/2003/may2003/interview.htm).
Dynes, Michael and Dominic Kennedy (2001), “I Sought Peace and

Couldn’t Find It,” in The Times British News, August 27
Ebon, Martin (1968), Maharishi, the Guru: An International

Symposium (Toronto: The New American Library of Canada
Limited).
Economist (2000), “Monkey Business: Thailand’s Monkish

Scandals,” in The Economist, November 30
(http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=
S%26(X%20%2BQQ%3F*%0A).
Edwards, Harry (1995), “Incorruptibility: Miracle or Myth?” in

Investigator, 45, November
(http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/PaIncorruptibility.htm).
Edwards, Harry (1994), “Firewalking,” in Skeptoon, An Illustrated

Look at Some New Age Beliefs (New South Wales, Australia: Harry
Edwards Publications; http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/
byhedwa3.htm).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 585
Ehrlich, Richard S. (2000), “Buddhist Crimes”

(http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0011/S00003.htm).
Einstein, Albert (1950), Out of My Later Years (New York:

Philosophical Library).
Eisenstadt, Merry M. (1993), “Former Cult Members Recall Group

They Left,” in Washington Jewish Week, March 25.
Elias (2002), “Yogic Masturbation in Adidam”

(http://lightmind.com/blogs/blogarchive-007.html).
Elias (2000a), “The New Pattern”

(http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-04.html).
Elias (2000), “Adidam Fundraising”

(http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-03.html).
Elias (1999a), “Is Daism Vulnerable to a Class Action Suit?”

Elias (1999), “For a Man Who Had a Vision of Frank”

Eller, Cynthia (2003), The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an

Invented Past Won’t Give Women a Future (Boston, MA: Beacon
Press).
Ellis, Mark (2003), “Dalai Lama: I’ve Missed Sex,” in The Mirror,
July 29
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13231174_
method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-DALAI-LAMA--I-VE-
MISSED-SEX-name_page.html).
EmpireNet (2003), “Lawsuits Against TWI and Allegations of Sexual

Misconduct”
(http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/tw_suits-sex.htm).
England, Mark and Darlene McCormick (1993), “The Sinful

Messiah,” in The Waco Tribune-Herald Series, Fort Worth
Star-Telegram, March 3
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco9.html).
Epstein, Edward (1995), “Politics and Transcendental Meditation,” in

San Francisco Chronicle, December 29
Evans, Christopher (1973), Cults of Unreason (London: Harrap).
Extra (1999), “Extra: Family at War,” September 27

Falsani, Cathleen (2002), “All He’s Saying Is...,” in Chicago

Sun-Times, July 11
Farrow, Mia (1997), What Falls Away: A Memoir (New York: Nan A.
Talese).
Feuerstein, Georg (1998), The Mystery of Light: The Life and

Teaching of Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov (Lower Lake, CA: Integral
Publishing).
Feuerstein, Georg (1996), “Holy Madness: The Dangerous and

Disillusioning Example of Da Free John,” in What Is Enlightenment?
Issue 9 (http://www.wie.org/j9/feuerstein_madness.asp?page=2).
Feuerstein, Georg (1992), Holy Madness (New York: Arkana).
Feynman, Richard (1989 [1985]), “Surely You’re Joking, Mr.

Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character (New York:
Bantam).
Fields, Rick (1992), How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narrative
History of Buddhism in America (Boston, MA: Shambhala).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 587
Findhorn Community (1980), Faces of Findhorn (New York: Harper

& Row, Publishers).
Fitzgerald, Frances (1986), Cities on a Hill: A Journey Through

Contemporary American Cultures (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Flaccus, Gillian (2001), “Ore. Town Never Recovered from Scare,” in

The Associated Press, October 19
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/rajneesh/rajneesh8.html).
Forem, Jack (1973), Transcendental Meditation; Maharishi Mahesh

Yogi and the Science of Creative Intelligence (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin
& Company Limited).
France, David (2004), Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic
Church in an Age of Scandal (New York: Broadway Books).
Frank, Arno (2000), “Intimidation of the Waldorf Kind,” in TAZ,

August 4 (http://www.rickross.com/reference/waldorf/waldorf2.html).
Franken, Al (1996), Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (New York:

Delacorte Press).
Franklin, Satya Bharti (1992), The Promise of Paradise: A Woman’s

Intimate Story of the Perils of Life with Rajneesh (Barrytown, NY:
Station Hill Press).
French, Patrick (2003), Tibet, Tibet: A Personal History of a Lost

Land (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Friedman, Roger (2003), “Will Scientology Celebs Sign ‘Spiritual’

Contract?” on Fox News, September 3 (http://www.rickross.com/
reference/scientology/celebrities/celebrities32.html).
Furlong, Monica (1987), Thérèse of Lisieux (London: Virago Press).

Futrelle, David (1997), “How Strange Were They? The San Diego
Cultists Have More in Common with Other Religious Enthusiasts
Than You Might Think,” in Salon, March 28
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/heavensgate/gate30.html).
Galloway, Paul (1991), “Gonzo Guru,” in Chicago Tribune,

September 20
Garden, Mary (1988), The Serpent Rising: A Journey of Spiritual

Seduction (Fortitude Valley, Australia: Brolga Publishing).
Gardner, Martin (2000), Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? Discourses
on Reflexology, Numerology, Urine Therapy, and Other Dubious
Subjects (New York: W. W. Norton & Company).
Gardner, Martin (1999), “Carlos Castaneda and New Age

Anthropology,” in Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 23, No. 5, September/
October.
Gardner, Martin (1996), Weird Water and Fuzzy Logic (Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books).
Gardner, Martin (1978), “White and Brown Music, Fractal Curves

and One-Over-f Fluctuations,” in Scientific American, April.
Gardner, Martin (1957 [1952]), Fads and Fallacies in the Name of

Science (New York: Dover Publications).
Geisler, Norman (1991), “The Rise of the Cults,” lecture at The New
England Institute for Religious Research, November 2.
Ghosh, Sananda Lal (1980), Mejda: The Family and the Early Life of
Paramahansa Yogananda (Los Angeles: Self-Realization
Fellowship).
Ginsberg, Alex (2004), “Ex-Followers Rip ‘Sleazy’ Sri,” in New York

Post, May 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY 589
Giri, Swami Satyeswarananda (1992), Babaji, Volume III: Masters of

Original Kriya (San Diego: The Sanskrit Classics).
Giri, Swami Satyeswarananda (1991), Babaji, Volume II: Lahiri

Mahasay, The Polestar of Kriya (San Diego: The Sanskrit Classics).
Giuliano, Geoffrey (1989), Dark Horse: The Secret Life of George

Harrison (Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited).
Giuliano, Geoffrey (1986), The Beatles: A Celebration (Agincourt,

Ontario: Methuen Publications).
Goa, Helen (1999), “Sex and the Singular Swami,” in The San
Francisco Weekly, March 10
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/ananda/ananda1.html).
Goffman, Erving (1961), Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of

Mental Patients and Other Inmates (Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books).
Goldberg, Michelle (2001), “Untouchable?” in Salon Magazine, July

25 (http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2001/07/25/baba/index.html).
Goldhammer, John D. (1996), Under the Influence: The Destructive

Effects of Group Dynamics (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books).
Goldman, Albert (1991), Elvis: The Last 24 Hours (New York:

St. Martin’s Paperbacks).
Goldman, Albert (1981), Elvis (New York: Avon).
Goldstein, Sheldon [Shelly] (2002), “Bohmian Mechanics,” in The

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter
(http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/qm-bohm/).
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (2004 [1994]), The Occult Roots of

Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influences on Nazi Ideology
(New York: New York University Press).
Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (2003 [2001]), Black Sun: Aryan Cults,

Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity (New York: New York
University Press).
Goodstein, Laurie (1998), “Hare Krishna Faith Details Past Abuse at

Boarding Schools,” in New York Times, October 9
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna5.html).
Gordon, James (1987), The Golden Guru: The Strange Journey of

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Lexington, MA: The Stephen Greene
Press).
Gorski, Timothy N. (2001), “Hearing on Swindlers, Hucksters and

Snake Oil Salesmen: The Hype and Hope of Marketing Anti-Aging
Products to Seniors,” in United States Senate Special Committee on
Aging, September 10 (http://www.quackwatch.org/
01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Hearing/gorski2.html).
Gould, Martin (1998), “Travolta Dragged into Bizarre Gay Lawsuit,”

in the Star, August 18
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien58.html).
Gourley, Scott R. and Rosemary Edmiston (1997), “Adidam Comes

to the Northcoast,” in Northcoast Journal Weekly
Govindan, Marshall (1997), How I Became a Disciple of Babaji

(Eastman, Quebec: Babaji’s Kriya Yoga and Publications, Inc.).
Gracious, God Is (2000), “Barbara Marx-Hubbard Meets Adi Da”

(http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/hubbard-leela.html).
Greene, Brian (2000 [1999]), The Elegant Universe: Superstrings,

Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (New
York: Vintage).
Grout, James (2003), “The Death of William the Conqueror”

(http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/britannia/hastings/williamdeath.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 591
GuruNet (2003), “Sri Aurobindo: Overview of His Life”

(http://gurusoftware.com/Gurunet/AurobindoMother/Aurobindo.htm).
Gyan, Satish Chandra (1980), Sivananda and His Ashram (Madras,

India: The Christian Literature Society).
Gyanamata, S. (1984), God Alone: The Life and Letters of a Saint

Hajdu, David (2003), “Hustling Elvis,” in The New York Review of

Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16598).
Halbersma, Rein (2002), Geometry of Strings and Branes

(http://www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/dis/science/r.s.halbersma).
Hall, Elizabeth (1975), “The Sufi Tradition: ‘Some Gurus are Frankly
Phonies, and They Don’t Try to Hide It from Me, They Think I am
One Too,’” in Psychology Today, July.
Hamilton, Craig (1999), “Excellence is Not Enough: An Interview

with Anthony Robbins,” in What Is Enlightenment? Issue 15
(http://www.wie.org/j15/robbins.asp).
Hamilton, Rosemary (1998), Hellbent for Enlightenment: Unmasking

Sex, Power, and Death with a Notorious Master (Ashland, OR: White
Cloud Press).
Haney, Craig and Philip G. Zimbardo (1998), “The Past and Future of
U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-Five Years After the Stanford Prison
Experiment,” in American Psychologist, 53 (text available online at
http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/ap1998.pdf).
Haney, Craig and Philip G. Zimbardo (1975), “The Blackboard

Penitentiary: It’s Tough to Tell a High School from a Prison,” in
Psychology Today, June.
Haney, Craig, William Curtis Banks and Philip G. Zimbardo (1973),

“Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison,” in International
Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1 (text available online at
http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/ijcp1973.pdf).
Hargens, Sean (2001), “Intersubjective Musings: A Response to

Christian de Quincey’s ‘The Promise of Integralism’”
(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/watch/042301_intro.cfm).
Harper, Marvin Henry (1972), Gurus, Swamis, & Avatars

(Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press).
Harpur, Tom (2001), “Guru Shrugs Off Sex Allegations,” in The Star,
January 14
Harris, Lis (1994), “O Guru, Guru, Guru,” in the New Yorker,

November 14
(http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/SYDA-Yoga/leave.txt).
Harris, Michael (1991 [1990]), Unholy Orders: Tragedy at Mount

Cashel (New York: Penguin Books).
Harvey, Andrew (2000), The Return of the Mother (Berkeley, CA:

Frog, Ltd.).
Harvey, Bob (2000a), “The Man Believers Think is God,” in The

Ottawa Citizen, December 19
Harvey, Peter (2000), An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics:

Foundations, Values and Issues (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press).
Hassan, Steven (2000), Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to

Think for Themselves (Somerville, MA: Freedom of Mind Press).
Hassan, Steven (1990 [1988]), Combatting Cult Mind Control

(Rochester, VT: Park Street Press).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 593
Hatengdi, M. U. (1984), Nityananda: The Divine Presence

(Cambridge, MA: Rudra Press).
Hausherr, Tilman (2002), “Cult Apologist FAQ”

(http://home.snafu.de/tilman/faq-you/cult.apologists.txt).
Hawken, Paul (1976), The Magic of Findhorn (New York: Bantam

Books).
Hayward, Jeremy and Francisco Varela (1992), Gentle Bridges:

Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind (Boston,
MA: Shambhala).
Heath, Chris (2000), “The Epic Life of Carlos Santana,” in Rolling

Stone, March 16 (New York: Straight Arrow;
http://www.rickross.com/reference/srichinmoy/srichinmoy18.html).
Hemsell, Rod (2002), “Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo: A Critical

Perspective” (http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/
i_es_hemse_wilber.htm).
Heron, John (1997), “A Way Out for Wilberians”

(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/WilbErrs.htm).
Hiley, Basil and F. David Peat (1987), Quantum Implications: Essays

in Honour of David Bohm (New York: Routledge).
Hislop, John (1978), Conversations with Sathya Sai Baba (San Diego,
CA: Birth Day Publishing Company).
Hitchens, Christopher (2001), Letters to a Young Contrarian

(Cambridge, MA: Basic Books).
Hitchens, Christopher (1998), “His Material Highness,” in Salon

Magazine, July 13
(http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/13news.html).
Hitchens, Christopher (1995), The Missionary Position: Mother

Teresa in Theory and Practice (New York: Verso).
Hoffer, Eric (1951), The True Believer (San Francisco, CA: Harper &
Row, Publishers).
Holmes, David S. (1988), “The Influence of Meditation Versus Rest

on Physiological Arousal: A Second Evaluation,” in Michael A.
West, ed., The Psychology of Meditation (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
(http://www.american-buddha.com/meditation.arousal.htm).
Holmes, David S. (1984), “Meditation and Somatic Arousal

Reduction. A Review of the Experimental Evidence,” in American
Psychologist, 39(1).
Horgan, John (2003a), Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the

Border Between Science and Spirituality (New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company).
Horgan, John (2003), “The Myth of the Totally Enlightened Guru”

(http://www.johnhorgan.org/work8.htm).
Horgan, John (1999), “The Anti-Gurus”

(http://www.johnhorgan.org/work5.htm).
Hubner, John and Lindsey Gruson (1990 [1988]), Monkey on a Stick:

Murder, Madness, and the Hare Krishnas (New York: Penguin
Books).
Huchzermeyer, Wilfried (1998), Mother: A Short Biography (Silver

Lake, WI: Lotus Press).
Hyman, Ray (2003), “How Not to Test Mediums: Critiquing the

Afterlife Experiments,” in Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 27, No. 1,
January/February (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html).
Inner Culture (1935), “Inner Culture News,” in Inner Culture,

December
(http://www.ananda.it/en/yogananda/india1935/india9.html).
Integral (2005), “Renegade Gurus and Tantric Dynamics!”

(http://www.iibb.org/archives/2005/02/renegade_gurus.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 595
Integral (2004a), “Financial Support”

(http://www.integralinstitute.org/joinus2.htm).
Integral (2004), “History” (http://web.archive.org/web/

20031205084501/www.integralinstitute.org/history.htm).
Integral (2003), “Integral Institute” (http://www.integralinstitute.org).
IntegralNaked (2005), “Michael Murphy”

(http://www.integralnaked.org/talk.aspx?id=35).
IntegralNaked (2004), “Who is Ken Wilber?”

(http://www.integralnaked.org/contributor.aspx?id=1).
Jackson, Devon (1996), “Bless You, Sir, May I Jog Another?” in

Outside magazine, October
(http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/1096/9610febl.html).
Jacobsen, Jeff (2004), “Lisa McPherson”

(http://www.lisamcpherson.org).
James, William (1990), The Varieties of Religious Experience (New

York: Vintage Books/Library of America).
Jarvis, William (1994), “Homeopathy: A Position Statement by the

National Council Against Health Fraud,” in Skeptic, Volume 3, No. 1
(http://www.skeptic.com/archives21.html).
Jenkins, Philip (2001), Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New

Religions in American History (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Jewel (1999), “How Devotees Became ‘Dissidents’ in 1985”

(http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-05/
daism-05.mv?module=view&viewid=3252&row=270).
John, Bubba Free (1974), Garbage and the Goddess: The Last
Miracles and Final Spiritual Instructions of Bubba Free John (Lower
Lake, CA: The Dawn Horse Press).
John, Da Free (1985), The Dawn Horse Testament (Middletown, CA:

The Dawn Horse Press). Foreword at
http://www.beezone.com/Wilber/ken_wilbur_praise.html.
John, Da Free (1980), Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will

Soon Be Announced by the White House! (Middletown, CA: The
Dawn Horse Press). Foreword at
http://www.beezone.com/Wilber/onherocults.html.
Johnson, David and Jeff Vanvonderen (1991), The Subtle Power of

Spiritual Abuse (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers).
Johnson, George (1998), “Almost in Awe, Physicists Ponder
‘Ultimate’ Theory,” in New York Times, September 22.
Johnson, K. Paul (1994), The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky

and the Myth of the Great White Lodge (New York: State University
of New York Press).
Joy, W. Brugh (1990), Avalanche: Heretical Reflections on the Dark

and the Light (New York: Ballantine Books).
Kamala (1964), The Flawless Mirror (Nevada City, CA: Crystal

Clarity Publishers).
Kashi (2004), “Kashi Center for Advanced Spiritual Studies Presents

Bhagavan Das Chanting Concert and Workshop”
(http://www.kashi.org/Flyers/BhagDas.pdf).
Kashi (2003), “Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati”

(http://www.kashi.org/bio.htm).
Kasturi, N. (1971), The Life of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba

(Santa Ana, CA: Sai Baba Society).
Katz, Donald (1992), Home Fires (New York: Harper Collins).
Kaufman, Robert (1995 [1972]), Inside Scientology/Dianetics: How I

Joined Dianetics/Scientology and Became Superhuman
(http://www.factnet.org/Books/InsideScientology/?FACTNet).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 597
Kaur, Now Aware (1998), “3HO—Is It a Toxic Faith System?”

(http://www.rickross.com/reference/3ho/3ho44.html).
Kazlev, Alan (2004), “Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo”

(http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilber_on_Aurobindo.html).
Kazlev, Alan (2003), “Ken Wilber Adi Da”

(http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Da.html).
Keegan, Paul (2002), “Yogis Behaving Badly,” in Business 2.0,

September
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general478.html).
Keene, M. Lamar (1977), The Psychic Mafia (New York:

Dell Publishing Co., Inc.).
Keepin, Will (1993), “Lifework of David Bohm—River of Truth,” in

ReVision, Summer (http://www.satyana.org/html/bohm2.html).
Kennedy, Dominic (2001), “Suicide, Sex and the Guru,” in The Times
British News, August 27
Kent, Stephen A. (2001), From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest

and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam Era (Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press).
Khalsa, Kamlapadi Kaur (1994), “In the Magical Soup: Meditations

on Twenty Years of Cult Living (Within Yogi Bhajan’s 3HO)”
Khalsa, Kamlapati Kaur (1990), “The Dysfunctional 3HO Family,” in

Visions (http://www.rickross.com/reference/3ho/3ho72.html).
Khalsa, Shakti Parwha Kaur (1996), Kundalini Yoga: The Flow of

Eternal Power (New York: Perigee).
Kilduff, Marshall and Ron Javers (1978), The Suicide Cult: The
Inside Story of the Peoples Temple Sect and the Massacre in Guyana
(New York: Bantam).
Kjernsmo, Kjetil (1997), “A Preliminary Empirical Study of

Firewalking”
(http://www.skepsis.no/english/subject/firewalk/kpreemp1).
Klass, Philip J. (2000), “The New Bogus Majestic-12 Documents,” in

Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 24, No. 3, May/June
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/majestic-12.html).
Klein, Aaron E. and Cynthia L. Klein (1979), Mind Trips: The Story
of Consciousness-Raising Movements (Garden City, NY: Doubleday
& Company).
Klimo, Jon (1998), Channeling: Investigations on Receiving

Information from Paranormal Sources (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic
Books).
Knight, Miriam (2003), “A Mystic for Our Time: An Interview with

Andrew Harvey,” in New Connexion, January
(http://www.newconnexion.net/article/01-03/harvey.html).
Knight, Steve (2004), “Uri Geller: Chronological Bibliography”

(http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/index.htm).
Koestler, Arthur (1960), The Lotus and the Robot (New York: Harper
& Row Publishers, Inc.).
Kornfield, Jack (2000), After the Ecstasy, the Laundry: How the
Heart Grows Wise on the Spiritual Path (New York: Bantam).
Kornfield, Jack (1993), A Path with Heart: A Guide Through the

Perils and Promises of a Spiritual Life (New York: Bantam).
Kovoor, Abraham (1998 [1976]), Begone Godmen! Encounters with

Spiritual Frauds (Calcutta: Jaico Publishing House).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 599
Kramer, Joel and Diane Alstad (1993), The Guru Papers: Masks of
Authoritarian Power (Berkeley, CA: Frog, Ltd.).
Krassner, Paul (1993), Confessions of a Raving, Unconfined Nut:

Misadventures in the Counter-Culture (New York: Simon &
Schuster).
Kraus, Daniel (2000), “Roo the Day,” in Salon Magazine, August 25

(http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/08/25/roos/index.html).
Kripal, Jeffrey (1995), Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in
the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press). For a critique of Kripal’s work, from a monk of the
Ramakrishna Order, see Tyagananda (2000). For Kripal’s response to
his critics, see http://www.atman.net/kalischild/index.html.
Kripalu (2003), “Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health”

(http://www.kripalu.org).
Krishnamurti, Jiddu (1969), Early Writings, Volume 1 (Bombay:

Chetana).
Kriya Yoga Discussion Board (2001), “Kriya Yoga Discussion

Board” (http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=Kriya).
Kriyananda, Swami (1979), The Path: Autobiography of a Western

Yogi (Nevada City, CA: Ananda Publications).
Kriyananda, Swami (1974 [1973]), The Road Ahead: World

Prophecies by the Great Master, Paramahansa Yogananda, Edited
with Commentary by his Disciple Swami Kriyananda (Nevada City,
CA: Ananda Publications).
Kuncl, Tom (2001), “George W. Bush and the Moonies,” in The

National Examiner, January 9
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/unif106.html).
Lake County (1985), “Believers ‘Surrender’ to Spiritual Master,” in

Lake County Record-Bee, April 4
Lalich, Janja (2004), Bounded Choice: True Believers and

Charismatic Cults (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Lalich, Janja (1997), “CNN Interview with Yanya [sic] Lalich”

(http://www.rickross.com/reference/heavensgate/gate25.html).
Lama, Dalai (1999), Ethics for the New Millennium (New York:
Riverhead Books).
Lama, Dalai (1996), Beyond Dogma: Dialogues & Discourses

(Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books).
Lane, David Christopher (1997), “Occam’s Razor: Critical Essays”

(http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/paranormal.htm).
Lane, David Christopher (1996a), “Da: The Strange Case of Franklin

Jones” (http://vm.mtsac.edu/~dlane/datext.html).
Lane, David Christopher (1996), “Critique of Ken Wilber”

(http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/kendebates.htm, also posted with
greater usability at
http://www.geoffreyfalk.com/books/LaneMenu.asp).
Lane, David Christopher (1995), The Enchanted Land

(http://elearn.mtsac.edu/philosophy/quest.htm).
Lane, David Christopher (1994), Exposing Cults: When the Skeptical

Mind Confronts the Mystical (New York: Garland Publishing; text
online at http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/cults.html).
Lane, David (1993), “Why I Don’t Eat Faces: A Neuroethical

Argument for Vegetarianism”
(http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/faces.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 601
Lane, David (1992), The Radhasoami Tradition: A Critical History of

Guru Successorship (http://vm.mtsac.edu/~dlane/radhabook.html).
Lane, David Christopher (1983), The Making of a Spiritual

Movement: The Untold Story of Paul Twitchell and Eckankar (Del
Mar, CA: Del Mar Press; text online at
http://www.geocities.com/eckcult/index.html).
Lane, David Christopher and Scott Lowe (1996), “Da: The Strange
Case of Franklin Jones” (http://vm.mtsac.edu/~dlane/dabook.html).
Langone, Michael D., ed. (1995 [1993]), Recovery from Cults: Help
for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company).
Larabee, Mark (2000), “Two Rajneeshee Members Plead Guilty,” in

The Oregonian, December 16
Lasater, Judith (1995), “California Yoga Teachers Association Code

of Conduct,” in Yoga Journal, November/December
Lattin, Don (1994), “Best-Selling Buddhist Author Accused of Sexual

Abuse” (http://www.american-buddha.com/sogyal.htm).
Lattin, Don (1985a), “Hypnotic Da Free John—Svengali of the

Truth-Seeking Set,” in San Francisco Examiner, April 5
Lattin, Don (1985), “Guru Hit by Sex-Slave Suit: Stories of Drugs,

Orgies on Free John’s Fiji Isle,” in San Francisco Examiner, April 3
Layton, Deborah (1998), Seductive Poison: A Jonestown Survivor’s

Story of Life and Death in the Peoples Temple (New York: Anchor
Books).
Lehnert, Tomek (1998), Rogues in Robes: An Inside Chronicle of a

Recent Chinese-Tibetan Intrigue in the Karma Kagyu Lineage of
Diamond Way Buddhism (Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin
Publishing).
Lew, Mike (2004 [1990]), Victims No Longer: The Classic Guide for
Men Recovering from Sexual Child Abuse (New York: Quill).
Lewy, Guenter (2000 [1964]), The Catholic Church and Nazi

Germany (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press).
Leydecker, Mary (1985), “Suit Shatters Calm for Sect Members,” in

Marin Independent-Journal, April 5
Lifton, Robert (1989), Thought Reform and the Psychology of

Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press).
Light, Search For (2003), “Short Life-Sketch”

(http://www.searchforlight.org/TheMother_lifeSketch.htm).
Lightmind (2004), Daism Research Index

(http://lightmind.com/library/daismfiles/).
LNI (2003), “History of Nityananda Institute and Swami

Chetanananda” (http://www.leaving-nityananda-institute.org).
Lowe, Scott (1996), “The Strange Case of Franklin Jones”

(http://www.american-buddha.com/franklin.jones.htm).
Lutyens, Elisabeth (1972), A Goldfish Bowl (London: Cassell & Co.).
Lutyens, Mary (1988), Krishnamurti: The Open Door (London: John

Murray).
Lutyens, Mary (1983), Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfillment

(London: John Murray).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 603
Lutyens, Mary (1975), Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening

(New York: Avon Books).
Macdonald, Sarah (2003 [2002]), Holy Cow: An Indian Adventure

(New York: Broadway Books).
Mackenzie, Vicki (1999), Cave in the Snow (London: Bloomsbury

Publishing Plc.).
Mackenzie, Vicki (1995), Reborn in the West (New York: Marlow &
Company).
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1995), Science of Being and Art of Living:

Transcendental Meditation (New York: Penguin).
Maharshi, Ramana with Robert Powell, ed. (2000), Talks with

Ramana Maharshi: On Realizing Abiding Peace and Happiness
(Carlsbad, CA: Inner Directions).
Malko, George (1970), Scientology: The Now Religion (New York:

Delacorte Press; full text online at
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/malko/malko.htm).
Mallia, Joseph (1998), “Church Wields Celebrity Clout,” in Boston

Herald, March 5
Mandelkorn, Philip, ed. (1978), To Know Your Self: The Essential

Teachings of Swami Satchidananda (Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books).
Mangalwadi, Vishal (1992), The World of Gurus (Chicago, IL:

Cornerstone Press).
Manseau, Peter and Jeff Sharlet (2004), Killing the Buddha: A

Heretic’s Bible (New York: Free Press).
Marin, Peter (1995), Freedom & Its Discontents (South Royalton,

VT: Steerforth Press).
Marks, David F. and John Colwell (2000), “The Psychic Staring

Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization,” in Skeptical Inquirer,
Volume 24, No. 5, September/October
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html).
Marshall, Anne (1963), Hunting the Guru in India (London: Victor

Gollancz, Ltd.).
Marshall, John (1980), “Files Show Spy Reported Woman’s Intimate

Words,” in Globe and Mail, January 25 (http://www.rickross.com/
reference/scientology/canada/canada6.html).
Mason, Bobbie Ann (2003), Elvis Presley (New York: Viking

Penguin).
Masson, Jeffery Moussaieff (2003), My Father’s Guru: A Journey

Through Spirituality and Disillusion (New York: Ballantine Books).
Mata, Daya (1971), Only Love (Los Angeles: Self-Realization

Fellowship).
Mata, Durga (1992), A Paramhansa Yogananda Trilogy of Divine

Love (Beverly Hills, CA: Joan Wight Publications).
Matsakis, Aphrodite (1996), I Can’t Get Over It: A Handbook for

Trauma Survivors (Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.).
McCafferty, Dennis (1999), “Old Bhagwan, New Bottles,” in Salon

Magazine, October 20
(http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/10/20/osho/).
McDermott, Robert A., ed. (1984), The Essential Steiner: Basic

Writings of Rudolf Steiner (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row,
Publishers).
McGehee, Overton (1991), “Ex-Followers Say Swami Demanded

Sexual Favors,” in Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY 605
Mehta, Gita (1979), Karma Cola (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Meier, Barbara (1992), “Interview: Jerry Garcia,” in Tricycle: The

Buddhist Review, Spring 1992
(http://www.tricycle.com/new.php?p=articles&id=269).
Meyerhoff, Jeff (2003), Bald Ambition: A Critique of Ken Wilber’s

Theory of Everything (http://www.integralworld.net/meyerhoff.html).
Michel, Peter (1992), Krishnamurti, Love and Freedom (Woodside,

CA: Bluestar Communication Corporation).
Midal, Fabrice (2004), Chögyam Trungpa: His Life and Vision

(Boston, MA: Shambhala).
Miles, Barry (1989), Ginsberg: A Biography (New York: Simon &

Schuster).
Milgram, Stanley (1974), Obedience to Authority (New York: Harper

& Row).
Miller, Russell (1987), Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of

L. Ron Hubbard (Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited; full text online
at http://www.discord.org/~lippard/bfm).
Milne, Hugh (1986), Bhagwan: The God That Failed (New York:
St. Martin’s Press).
Minerd, Jeff (2000), “The Marriage of Sense and Soul by Ken

Wilber,” in Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 24, No. 1, January/February.
Minor, Robert N. (1999), The Religious, the Spiritual, and the

Secular: Auroville and Secular India (Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press).
Mooney, Chris (2005), “Bad Science, Bad Fiction,” in Doubt and

About, January 18.
Morris, Charles R. (1997), American Catholic: The Saints and

Sinners Who Built America’s Most Powerful Church (New York:
Times Books).
Motoyama, Hiroshi (2000 [1992]), Karma and Reincarnation: A Key

to Spiritual Evolution and Enlightenment (London: Piatkus).
MSS (2003), Karmayogi (Pondicherry, India: The Mother’s Service

Society; text online at http://www.motherservice.org/
Life & Teachings/Life and Teachings.htm).
Mukerjee, Dada (1996), The Near and the Dear: Stories of Neem
Karoli Baba and His Devotees (Santa Fe, NM: Hanuman
Foundation).
Muktananda, Swami (1999), The Perfect Relationship: The Guru and

the Disciple (South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation).
Muktananda, Swami (1996), Bhagawan Nityananda of Ganeshpuri

(South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation).
Muktananda, Swami (1981), Where Are You Going? A Guide to the

Spiritual Journey (South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation).
Muktananda, Swami (1978), Play of Consciousness: A Spiritual

Autobiography (South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation).
Murphy, Michael (1992), The Future of the Body: Explorations into

the Further Evolution of Human Nature (Los Angeles: Jeremy P.
Tarcher, Inc.).
Murphy, Padraic (2000), “Scandal Engulfs Guru’s Empire,” in The

Age (Australia), November 12
Mussolini, Benito (1927), “Science and Religion,” in East-West

magazine, May/June, Volume 2, No. 4
(http://www.mysticalportal.net/2-4.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 607
Muster, Nori J. (1997), Betrayal of the Spirit: My Life Behind the

Headlines of the Hare Krishna Movement (Chicago: University of
Illinois Press).
Nahar, Sujata (1989), Mirra the Occultist (Paris: Institut de

Recherches Évolutives).
Naman, Mard (1980), “The Pure Ones,” in New West, December

National Post (2000), “‘Have Rabbit, Will Travel’: Yogic Flyer’s

Natural Law Party Failed to Capture the Imagination,” in National
Post (UK), February 9
Neary, Walt (1985a), “Crazy Wisdom Bent Minds, Say Ex-Cultists,”

in Lake County Record Bee, April 11.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20031227113341/lightgate.net/archives/
daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=715&row=228).
Neary, Walt (1985), “Inner Circle Privy to Parties,” in Lake County

Record Bee, April 12
Nickell, Joe (2002), “Psychic Pets and Pet Psychics,” in Skeptical

Inquirer, Volume 26, No. 6, November/December
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/pet-psychic.html).
Nickell, Joe (2001), Real-Life X-Files: Investigating the Paranormal

(Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky).
Nickell, Joe (1998), Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics,

Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures (Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books).
Nikhilananda, Swami (1996), Vivekananda: A Biography (Calcutta:

Advaita Ashrama).
Nikhilananda, Swami, tr. (1984 [1942]), The Gospel of Sri

Ramakrishna (New York: Ramakrishna Vivekananda Center).
Nirodbaran (1990), Sri Aurobindo for All Ages: A Biography

(Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram).
Nisbet, Matt (2000), “The Physics Instructor Who Walks on Fire,” in

Generation sXeptic
(http://www.csicop.org/genx/firewalk/index.html).
Nityatmananda, Swami (1967), SriM Darsan (Calcutta: General

Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd.).
Nixon, Bob (2004), “Fire Walking Explained,” in “the Skeptic”

Journal (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/firexplain.htm).
Nordquist, Ted (1978), Ananda Cooperative Village: A Study in the

Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes of a New Age Religious Community
(Uppsala, Sweden: Borgströms Tryckeri AB).
Oakes, Len (1997), Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of

Revolutionary Religious Personalities (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press).
Oates, Robert M. (1976), Celebrating the Dawn (New York: Putnam).
Occhiogrosso, Peter (1996), The Joy of Sects: A Spirited Guide to the

World’s Religious Traditions (New York: Image Books).
Odajnyk, V. Walter (1993), Gathering the Light: A Psychology of

Meditation (Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, Inc.).
Oldmeadow, Harry (2004), Journeys East: 20th Century Western

Encounters with Eastern Religious Traditions (Bloomington, IN:
World Wisdom).
Olson, Helena (1979), Maharishi at “433”: The Story of Maharishi

Mahesh Yogi’s First Visit to the United States (Los Angeles).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 609
Orwell, George (1980 [1949]), “Reflections on Gandhi,” in The

Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume
4: In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950, Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus,
ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Paine, Jeffery (1998), Father India: How Encounters with an Ancient

Culture Transformed the Modern West (New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc.).
Palmer, Susan J. and Arvind Sharma (1993), The Rajneesh Papers:

Studies in a New Religious Movement (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers).
Panchen, Ngari and Pema Wangyi (1996), Perfect Conduct:

Ascertaining the Three Vows (Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications).
Park, Robert L. (1997), “Alternative Medicine and the Laws of

Physics,” in Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 21, No. 5, September/
October (http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html).
Partridge, Eric (1947), Shakespeare’s Bawdy (New York: Routledge).
Paulsen, Norman (1984), Christ Consciousness (Salt Lake City, UT:

The Builders Publishing Company).
Peat, F. David (1997), Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David
Bohm (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Peckinpaugh, David Jon (2004), “Shut-Ins: A Story on Hermeneutics

& the Wilber Inner Circle”
(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/peckinpaugh.html).
Penny, Bob (1993), Social Control in Scientology: A Look at the

Methods of Entrapment
(http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/scs.html).
Perez-Rivas, Manuel (2000), “A Search for Serenity,” in Washington

Post, July 6 (http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm10.html).
Phelps, Richard (1997), “Woman Wins $1.8M for Lecherous

Swami,” in The Philadelphia Daily News, national edition (via
Associated Press), September 5 (http://www.rickross.com/reference/
swami_rama/swami_rama1.html).
Phipps, Carter (2001), “I’m Optimistic: An Interview with Joe

Firmage,” in What Is Enlightenment? Issue 19
(http://www.wie.org/j19/firmage.asp?showRelated=1).
Pignotti, Monica (1989), My Nine Lives in Scientology

(http://www.factnet.org/Books/9LivesScientology/
nine_lives.html?FACTNet).
PlanetSave (2001), “Sex Scandal Monk Steps Down,” October 18

(http://www.planetsave.com/ViewStory.asp?ID=1515).
PLANS (2004), “Our Concerns About Waldorf Schools”

(http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/concerns.html).
Premanand, Basava (2005), “An Indian Skeptic’s Explanation of

Miracles” (http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/yuktibaadi.htm).
Premanand, Basava (1994), Science Versus Miracles, Volume 1

(http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/svm_cont.htm).
Pressman, Steven (1993), Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of

Werner Erhard from est to Exile (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
Radha, Swami Sivananda (1992), From the Mating Dance to the

Cosmic Dance: Sex, Love, and Marriage from a Yogic Viewpoint
(Kootenay Bay, BC: Timeless Books).
Radha, Swami Sivananda (1978), Kundalini Yoga for the West

(Kootenay Bay, BC: Timeless Books).
Radzik, Jody (2005), “The Perils of Pedestalization”

(http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yworship.htm).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 611
Rae, Stephen (1991), “The Guru Scene: Yes, They’re Still at It!
(Celebrity Cult Followers),” in Cosmopolitan, August
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/ramtha/ramtha1.html).
Raftery, Mary and Eoin O’Sullivan (2001), Suffer the Little Children:
The Inside Story of Ireland’s Industrial Schools (New York:
Continuum International Publishing Group).
Rajendra (1976), Journey to the New Age (Sumneytown, PA: Kripalu

Yoga Ashram).
Ramakrishna (2003), “Sri Ramakrishna: Biography”

(http://www.ramakrishna.org/Rmk.htm).
Rampa, T. Lobsang (1956), The Third Eye (New York:

Ballantine Books).
Randi, James (2004a), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

March 26 (http://www.randi.org/jr/032604why.html).
Randi, James (2004), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

February 13 (http://www.randi.org/jr/021304jeff.html).
Randi, James (2003f), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

November 14 (http://www.randi.org/jr/111403.html).
Randi, James (2003e), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

March 14 (http://www.randi.org/jr/031403.html).
Randi, James (2003d), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

September 5 (http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html).
Randi, James (2003c), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

April 4 (http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html).
Randi, James (2003b), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

January 3 (http://www.randi.org/jr/010303.html).


October 17 (http://www.randi.org/jr/101703.html).
Randi, James (2002c), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

June 28 (http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html).
Randi, James (2002b), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

November 29 (http://www.randi.org/jr/112902.html).

April 19 (http://www.randi.org/jr/041902.html).

Randi, James (2001d), “Swift: Online Newsletter of the JREF,”

February 2 (http://www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html).
Randi, James (2001c), “Commentary,” February 23

(http://www.randi.org/jr/02-23-2001.html).
Randi, James (2001b), “Commentary,” April 6

Randi, James (2001a), “Commentary,” March 30

Randi, James (2001), “Commentary,” March 23

Randi, James (2000b), “Commentary,” January 26

Randi, James (2000a), “Commentary,” October 29

Randi, James (2000), “Commentary,” December 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY 613
Randi, James (1995), An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and

Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural (New York: St. Martin’s
Press).
Randi, James (1993), The Mask of Nostradamus: The Prophecies of

the World’s Most Famous Seer (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books).
Randi, James (1982), Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and Other

Delusions (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books).
Rawlinson, Andrew (1997), The Book of Enlightened Masters:

Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions (Chicago, IL: Open Court).
Read, Richard (2001), “In the Grip of the Guru,” in The Oregonian,
July 15 (http://www.oregonlive.com/special/guru/index.ssf?/news/
oregonian/lc_11gside15.frame).
Reeve, Christopher (2002), Nothing is Impossible (New York:

Random House).
Reeves, Jay (2005), “FBI Probes Alabama Boy Scouts Membership”

(http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=442654).
Reynolds, Brad (2004), “Where’s Wilber At? The Further Evolution

of Ken Wilber’s Integral Vision During the Dawn of the New
Millennium”
(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/wheres-wilber.pdf).
Rich, Tracey R. (2001), “Judaism 101”

(http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm).
Richardson, John H. (1993), “Catch a Rising Star,” in Premiere,

September
Riddell, Carol (1990), The Findhorn Community: Creating a Human

Identity for the 21st Century (Findhorn, Scotland: Findhorn Press).
Rinpoche, Patrul (1998), The Words of My Perfect Teacher (Boston,

MA: Shambhala).
Ritchie, Jean (1991), The Secret World of Cults: Inside the Sects That
Take Over Lives (New York: HarperCollins Publishers).
Robbins, John (1987), Diet for a New America (Walpole, NH:

Stillpoint Publishing).
Robbins, Thomas and Dick Anthony, ed. (1982), In Gods We Trust:

New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America (New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books).
Rodarmor, William (1983), “The Secret Life of Swami Muktananda,”

in CoEvolution Quarterly
(http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/SYDA-Yoga/leave.txt).
Ross, Joan Carol and Michael Langone (1989), Cults: What Parents
Should Know: A Practical Guide (New York: Carol Publishing
Corporation).
Ross, Rick (2005c), “Warning Signs”

(http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html).
Ross, Rick (2005b), “Deepak Chopra”

(http://www.rickross.com/groups/deepakchopra.html).
Ross, Rick (2005), “Frederick Lenz”

(http://www.rickross.com/groups/lenz.html).
Ross, Rick (2004d), “Narconon”

(http://www.rickross.com/groups/scientology.html#Narconon).
Ross, Rick (2004c), “Church Universal and Triumphant and Elizabeth

Clare Prophet” (http://www.rickross.com/groups/cut.html).
Ross, Rick (2004b), “Lisa McPherson—Death of a Scientologist”

(http://www.rickross.com/groups/scientology.html#mcpherson).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 615
Ross , Rick (2004a), “Clergy Abuse”

(http://www.rickross.com/groups/clergy.html).
Ross, Rick (2004), “Welcome to the Rick A. Ross Institute of New

Jersey” (www.rickross.com).
Ross, Rick (2003e), “AP Picks Up NY Times Story About

Scientology-Related Program and NYC Firemen,” in Cult News,
October 5
(http://www.cultnews.com/archives/week_2003_10_05.html).
Ross, Rick (2003d), “Sri Chinmoy Discusses Sex, Celibacy and How
To Be a Good Guru”
Ross, Rick (2003c), “Is a Yoga Website Promoting ‘Cult’ Groups?”

in Cult News, March 24
(http://www.cultnews.com/2003_03_23_archive.html).
Ross, Rick (2003b), “Goldie Hawn to Appear at ‘Cult’ Leader’s

Birthday Bash,” in Cult News, August 18
Ross, Rick (2003a), “Time Magazine Plugs a ‘Cult’ Guru’s Plan,” in

Cult News, July 31
Ross, Rick (2003), “Is Dick Anthony a Full-Time Professional ‘Cult

Apologist’?” in Cult News, March 27
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist44.html).
Ross, Rick (2002b), “Cult Influence Growing?” in Cult News,

November 13
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist45.html).
Ross, Rick (2002a), “Still Crazy After All These Years?” in Cult
News, August 1
Ross, Rick (2002), “Another Hollywood ‘Cult’ Craze,” in Cult News,

August 20
Ross, Rick (1998), “Feats of Prowess Show Spirit’s Inner Strength,”

November 3
Rossetti, Stephen J. (1990), Slayer of the Soul: Child Sexual Abuse

and the Catholic Church (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications).
Royalty (2003), “William the Conqueror: The Conqueror’s

Childhood”
(http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/England/Norman/WilliamI.html).
Rudin, James and Marcia Rudin (1980), Prison or Paradise? The

New Religious Cults (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press).
Rudin, Marcia (1996), Cults on Campus: Continuing Challenge

(Bonita Springs, FL: American Family Foundation).
Russell, Peter (1977), The TM Technique: An Introduction to

Transcendental Meditation and the Teachings of Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi (Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Russell, Ron (2001a), “Exhuming the Truth: Ben Erskine Says He’s
the Swami’s Love Child and He Wants a Chance to Prove It,” in New
Times Los Angeles, November 29
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/selfreal/selfreal4.html).
Russell, Ron (2001), “The Devotee’s Son,” in New Times Los

Angeles, July 5
Russell, Ron (1999), “Return of the Swami,” in New Times Los

Angeles, July 1-7
BIBLIOGRAPHY 617
Rutter, Peter (1989), Sex in the Forbidden Zone: When Men in

Power—Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers, and Others—Betray
Women’s Trust (Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.).
Salkin, Allen (2002), “Emperor of Air,” in Yoga Journal,

September/October (http://www.yjevents.com/views/738_1.cfm).
Sanat, Aryel (1999), The Inner Life of Krishnamurti (Wheaton, IL:

The Theosophical Publishing House).
Sannella, Lee (2001), The Visionary Life (http://www.skaggs-

island.org/humanistic/sannella/visionarylife.html).
Satchidananda, Swami (1977), Guru and Disciple (Pomfret Center,

CT: Integral Yoga Publications).
Savage, Dan (2005), “Savage Love”

(http://www.thestranger.com/current/savage.html).
Schell, Orville (2001), Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-La from

the Himalayas to Hollywood (New York: Henry Holt & Company,
Inc.).
Schindler, David, ed. (1986), Beyond Mechanism: The Universe in

Recent Physics and Catholic Thought (Lanham, MD: The University
Press of America, Inc.).
Schumacher, Michael (1992), Dharma Lion: A Biography of Allen

Ginsberg (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
Schwartz, Gary (2001), “Reply from Dr. Gary Schwartz to James

Randi Re His Website Columns”
(http://survivalscience.50megs.com/torandi.htm).
Schwartz, Gary and Linda Russek (1999), The Living Energy

Universe: A Fundamental Discovery That Transforms Science &
Medicine (Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company,
Inc.).
Schwartz, Gary with William L. Simon (2002), The Afterlife

Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death
(New York: Atria Books).
Schwartz, John (2004), “Simulated Prison in ’71 Showed a Fine Line

Between ‘Normal’ and ‘Monster,’” in New York Times, May 6
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40D11FB34590C75
8CDDAC0894DC404482&incamp=archive:search).
Schwartz, Tony (1996), What Really Matters: Searching for Wisdom

in America (New York: Bantam Books).
Scott, R. D. (1978), Transcendental Misconceptions (San Diego, CA:

Beta Books).
Seidman, Barry F. (2001), “Medicine Wars: Will Alternative and

Mainstream Medicine Ever Be Friends?” in Skeptical Inquirer,
Volume 25, No. 1, January/February
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-01/medicine-wars.html).
Seidman, Peter (1985), “Sexual Experiments Continued After ’76,

JDC Officials Admit,” in Mill Valley Record, April 10
Self, Jane (1992), 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner

Erhard: How America’s Top Rated Television Show was Used in an
Attempt to Destroy a Man Who was Making a Difference (Houston,
TX: Breakthru Publishing).
Sennott, Charles M. (1992), Broken Covenant: The Story of Father

Bruce Ritter’s Fall from Grace (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Shainberg, Lawrence (1997), Ambivalent Zen: One Man’s Adventures

on the Dharma Path (New York: Vintage Books).
Shambhala (2004), “Sam Bercholz”

(http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/acharya/sbercholz.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 619
Shambhala (2003), “Vidyadhara Chögyam Trungpa”

(http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/vctr/ctrbio.html).
Shapiro, Marc (2002), Behind Sad Eyes: The Life of George Harrison
(New York: St. Martin’s Press).
Shermer, Michael (2000), How We Believe: The Search for God in an

Age of Science (New York: W. H. Freeman and Company).
Shermer, Michael (1997), Why People Believe Weird Things:

Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
(New York: W. H. Freeman and Company).
Sherrill, Martha (2000a), The Buddha from Brooklyn

(http://www.american-buddha.com/buddha.brook.htm).
Sherrill, Martha (2000), The Buddha from Brooklyn (New York:

Random House).
Shy, David (2004), “Abstracts of Articles in Psychological Journals

concerning est and The Forum”
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/landmark/landmark22.html).
Sil, Narasingha P. (2004), personal email communication.
Sil, Narasingha P. (1998), Ramakrishna Revisited: A New Biography

(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.).
Sil, Narasingha P. (1997), Swami Vivekananda: A Reassessment

(Mississauga, ON: Associated University Presses).
Silverman, Steve (2003), “William the Conqueror”

(http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/william_the_conqueror).
Simon, Stephanie (2004), “Cattle Video Stirs Kosher Meat Debate”

(http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/
kosher_meat_scandal/).
Singer, Margaret T. (2003 [1995]), Cults in Our Midst: The

Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace (San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).
Singer, Margaret T. and Janja Lalich (1996), Crazy Therapies: What

Are They? Do They Work? (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers).
Singh, Siri Scandal (2000), “More Predictions and Observations from

‘The Master’” (http://www.rickross.com/reference/3ho/3ho18.html).
Singh, Siri Scandal (1998a), “3HO Foundation Teachers Training

Courses” (http://www.rickross.com/reference/3ho/3ho9.html).
Singh, Siri Scandal (1998), “Predictions from ‘The Master’”

Singh, Siri Scientific (1999), “More from the Master’s Mouth”

Sipe, A. W. Richard (1995), Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a

Crisis (New York: Brunner/Mazel).
Sivananda, Swami (1958), An Autobiography of Sivananda

(Sivanandanagar, India: Yoga-Vedanta Forest Academy Press).
Skolnick, Andrew (1991), “Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Guru’s Marketing

Scheme Promises the World Eternal ‘Perfect Health,’” in JAMA, The
Journal of the American Medical Association, October 2
(http://web.archive.org/web/20040419100603/http://www.aaskolnick.
com/mav.html).
Sloss, Radha R. (2000), Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti

(Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com, Inc.).
Smith, Andrew P. (2004), “Contextualizing Ken: A Review of Jeff

Meyerhoff’s Bald Ambition”
(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/smith20.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 621
Smith, Andrew P. (2001), “Is God in the Garbage? A Critical

Appraisal of Adi Da’s Philosophy”
(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/smith12.html).
Smith, Ryan (2004), “Cults Targeted at Campus Security

Conference” (http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/arts/nav02.cfm?
nav02=27097&nav01=18478).
Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont (1998), Fashionable Nonsense:

Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (New York: St. Martin’s
Press).
SpiralDynamics (2005), “Welcome to Spiral Dynamics Integral”

(www.spiraldynamics.net).
SRF (1976), Paramahansa Yogananda, In Memoriam: The Master’s

Life, Work, and Mahasamadhi (Los Angeles: Self-Realization
Fellowship).
Steiner, Rudolf (1963 [1923]), Atlantis and Lemuria (Mokelumne,

CA: Health Research).
Steiner, Rudolf (1959), Cosmic Memory: Prehistory of Earth and

Man (West Nyack, NY: Rudolf Steiner Publications, Inc.).
Steiner, Rudolf (1947), Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its

Attainment (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press).
Stevens, Philip (2001), “Magical Thinking in Complementary and

Alternative Medicine,” in Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 25, No. 6,
November/December
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/alternative.html).
Stinson, Clay (1997), “An Open Letter to Ken Wilber”

(http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/keny.html).
Storr, Anthony (1996), Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners, and Madmen: A

Study of Gurus (New York: The Free Press).
Strelley, Kate with Robert D. San Souci (1987), The Ultimate Game:
The Rise and Fall of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (San Francisco, CA:
Harper & Row, Publishers).
Sturlson, Snorri (1997), Heimskringla—Norwegian Kings (Seattle,

WA: The World Wide School;
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/european/
heimskringla/HeimskringlaVolume6/chap97.html).
Sullivan, Kelly (2003), “Religious Sect’s Leader Visits Local Church

Site,” in Chariho Times, July 10
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/ananda/ananda7.html).
Tarlo, Luna (1997), The Mother of God (Brooklyn, NY: Plover

Press).
Taylor, Suzanne (2003), “Say It Isn’t So, Ken Wilber!”

(http://www.theconversation.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=
News&file=article&sid=119&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POS
TNUKESID=77af59f02ef0de3dbe55d05ec7a1adbb).
ThisTruth (2001), “Twisted Examples of ‘Crazy Wisdom’ from Adi

Da’s Fantasy World” (http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric/religion/
tt200112adidabubbafreejohnscandal.txt).
Thompson, Geoff (2000), “Scandals Follow Thailand’s Monks,” in

ABC Online News, Friday, November 24
(http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s216493.htm).
Thurman, Robert A. (2004), Infinite Life: Seven Virtues for Living

Well (New York: Riverhead Books).
Thurman, Robert A. (1995), Inside Tibetan Buddhism: Rituals and

Symbols Revealed (San Francisco, CA: Collins Publishers).
Thurman, Robert A. (1991), The Central Philosophy of Tibet

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 623
Time (1977), “Yogi Bhajan’s Synthetic Sikhism,” in Time,

September 5 (http://www.rickross.com/reference/3ho/3ho94.html).
Tobias, Madeleine Landau and Janja Lalich (1994), Captive Hearts,

Captive Minds: Freedom and Recovery from Cults and Other Abusive
Relationships (Alameda, CA: Hunter House; Joya-related excerpt
online at http://www.kashiashram.com/blinded.htm).
Todd, Douglas (2001), “Holy Man? Sex Abuser? Both?” in

Vancouver Sun, February 27
Toscani, Oliviero, et al. (2000), Cacas: The Encyclopedia of Poo

(Los Angeles: TASCHEN America, Llc.).
TranceNet (2004), “Shameless Mind”

(http://www.trancenet.org/chopra/index.shtml).
TranceNet (2003), “TranceNet: Independent TM Research Archive”

(http://www.trancenet.org/research).
Trimondi, Victor and Victoria Trimondi (2003), The Shadow of the

Dalai Lama: Sexuality, Magic and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism, tr.
Mark Penny (http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Index.htm).
Trungpa, Chögyam (1981), Journey Without Goal: The Tantric

Wisdom of the Buddha (Boulder, CO: Prajna Press).
Trungpa, Chögyam (1977), Born in Tibet (Boston, MA: Shambhala

Publications, Inc.).
Trungpa, Chögyam (1973), Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism

(Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications, Inc.).
Turner, Joseph (2001), “Who is Joseph Turner?” in Tommy Ryden,

ed., “Arya Kriya Information”
(http://www.tommyryden.com/kriya/turners_life.htm).
Tworkov, Helen (1994 [1989]), Zen in America: Five Teachers and

the Search for an American Buddhism (New York: Kodansha
America, Inc.).
Tyagananda, Swami (2000), Kali’s Child Revisited: Or, Didn’t

Anyone Check the Documentation?
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tyag/Home.htm).
Underwood, Mick (2005), “Social Influence—Conformity”

(http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/socinf/
conform.html).
Underwood, Barbara and Betty Underwood (1979), Hostage to

Heaven: Four Years in the Unification Church by an Ex Moonie and
the Mother Who Fought to Free Her (New York: Clarkson N. Potter,
Inc.).
Van Biema, David (1996), “Emperor of the Soul: Combining Medical

Advice with Indian Metaphysics, Deepak Chopra Has Thrived,
Telling Americans of a Place Where Spirit and Body Interact,” in
Time magazine, June 24 (http://www.time.com/time/archive/
preview/0%2C10987%2C1101960624-136108%2C00.html).
Van de Wetering, Janwillem (2001 [1999]), Afterzen: Experiences of

a Zen Student Out on His Ear (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
Van de Wetering, Janwillem (1999 [1973]), The Empty Mirror:

Experiences in a Japanese Zen Monastery (New York: St. Martin’s
Press).
Van der Braak, Andre (2003), Enlightenment Blues: My Years with

an American Guru (Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book Publishing
Company).
Van Wolferen (1990), The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and

Politics in a Stateless Nation (New York: Vintage Books).
Vaughan, Frances (1982), “A Question of Balance: Health and

Pathology in New Religious Movements,” in Journal of Humanistic
Psychology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 625
Vernon, Roland (2001), Star in the East: Krishnamurti, The Invention

of a Messiah (New York: Palgrave).
Victoria, Brian Daizen (2003), Zen War Stories (New York:

RoutledgeCurzon).
Victoria, Brian (Daizen) A. (1997), Zen at War (New York:

Weatherhill, Inc.).
Visser, Frank (1997), “‘Criticism Has Spiritual Value’—A Visit with

Ken Wilber, January 1997”
(http://www.khandro.com/kenwilber/visser0197.html).
Visser, Frank (1995), “Bodhisattvas are Going to Have to Become

Politicians: Interview with Ken Wilber by Frank Visser, 15 July
1995” (http://www.khandro.com/kenwilber/visser071595.html).
Vivekananda, Swami (1947), The Complete Works of Swami

Vivekananda (Hollywood, CA: Vedanta Press & Bookshop).
Vosper, Cyril (1997 [1971]), The Mind-Benders: Scientology

(London: Neville Spearman; full text online at
http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/books/vosper/).
Wade, Jenny (1996), Changes of Mind (Albany, NY: State University

of New York Press).
Wakefield, Margery (1996), Testimony: The Autobiography of

Margery Wakefield (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/Web/People/dst/
Library/Shelf/wakefield/testimony.html).
Wakefield, Margery (1993), The Road to Xenu: A Narrative Account

of Life in Scientology
(http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/).
Wakefield, Margery (1991), Understanding Scientology (Tampa, FL:

Coalition of Concerned Citizens; full text online at
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us.html).
Waldman, Amy (2002), “Old Rajneesh Commune Lightens Up in

Afterlife,” in the New York Times, December 11
Walker, David (1968), William the Conqueror (London: Oxford

University Press).
Wallace, Amy (2003), Sorcerer’s Apprentice: My Life with Carlos

Castaneda (Berkeley, CA: Frog, Ltd.).
Wallis, Roy (1976), The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological

Analysis of Scientology (London: Heinemann Educational Books
Ltd.).
Walls, Jeanette (2003), “Is Madonna Converting Britney Spears to

Kabbalah?” on MSNBC, September 11
(http://www.rickross.com/reference/kabbalah/kabbalah42.html).
Walls, Jeanette (2002), “Could Scientology Have Saved Elvis?” on

MSNBC, October 1 (http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/
celebrities/celebrities11.html).
Walrus, SRF (2004), “SRF Walrus Discussion Forum”

(http://www.angelfire.com/blues/srfwalrus).
Walsh, Roger (1999), Essential Spirituality: Exercises from the

World’s Religions to Cultivate Kindness, Love, Joy, Peace, Vision,
Wisdom, and Generosity (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).
Walsh, Roger and Frances Vaughan, ed. (1993), Paths Beyond Ego:
The Transpersonal Vision (Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.).
Walsh, Roger and Frances Vaughan, ed. (1988), A Gift of Healing:

Selections from A Course in Miracles (Los Angeles: Jeremy P.
Tarcher, Inc.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 627
Walters, J. Donald (2002), A Place Called Ananda: The Trial by Fire

That Forged One of the Most Successful Cooperative Communities in
the World Today
(http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/place/index.html).
Walters, J. Donald (1995), “Deposition of Mr. J. Donald Walters:

September 6 – November 30, 1995”
(http://www.anandaawareness.com/walters_testifies.html).
Ward, Tim (1998), What the Buddha Never Taught (Toronto:

Somerville House Publishing).
Warner, Brad (2004), “Enlightenment Blues”

(http://www2.gol.com/users/doubtboy/enlightenmentblues.html).
Warner, Brad (2003), Hardcore Zen (Boston, MA: Wisdom

Publications).
Warner, Judy (1990), Transformation of the Heart (York Beach, ME:

Samuel Weiser).
Washington, Peter (1995 [1993]), Madame Blavatsky’s Baboon: A

History of the Mystics, Mediums, and Misfits Who Brought
Spiritualism to America (New York: Schocken Books).
Watanabe, Teresa (1998), “Teachers or Tyrants?” in L.A. Times,

August 15 (http://www.themotherofgod.com/latimes.htm).
Webb, James (1976), The Occult Establishment (La Salle, IL: Open
Court).
Weber, Renee (1986), Dialogues with Scientists and Sages: The

Search for Unity (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Webster, Katharine (1990), “The Case Against Swami Rama of the

Himalayas,” in Yoga Journal, December (http://www.rickross.com/
reference/swami_rama/swami_rama2 .html).
Webster, Richard (1990), A Brief History of Blasphemy: Liberalism,

Censorship and “The Satanic Verses” (Oxford: The Orwell Press).
Welch, Chris (1995), Teenage Wasteland: The Early Years (Surrey,

England: Castle Communications).
Welch, David (2001), Hitler: Profile of a Dictator (New York:

Routledge).
Wettig, Hannah (2002), “‘King of the World’ Preaches Peace

Through ‘Yogic Flying,’” in The Daily Star, November 11
WHAT Enlightenment??! (2005), “WHAT enlightenment??! An

Uncensored Look at Self-Styled ‘Guru’ Andrew Cohen”
(http://whatenlightenment.blogspot.com).
Wheeler, Kate (1994), “Toward a New Spiritual Ethic,” in Yoga

Journal, March/April (http://www.anandainfo.com/new_ethic.html).
Wheeler, Thomas J. (1997), “Deepak Chopra and Maharishi

Ayurvedic Medicine”
(http://www.trancenet.org/chopra/news/ncahf.shtml).
White, John (1997), “The Experience of God-Realization,” in

Noumenon: A Newsletter for the Nondual Perspective
(http://www.noumenon.co.za/html/summer_1997.html).
Wiener, Sita (1972), Swami Satchidananda (New York: Bantam

Books).
WikiPedia (2003), “Dalai Lama”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama).
Wilber, Ken (2004b), “Ken Stops His Brain Waves!”

(http://www.integralnaked.org/news/index.aspx).
Wilber, Ken (2004a), “Reply to Edwards”

(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/wilber.html).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 629
Wilber, Ken (2004), “A Suggestion for Reading the Criticisms of My

Work” (http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/wilber_wokw.html).
Wilber, Ken (2003b), “Excerpt C: The Ways We Are in This

Together: Intersubjectivity and Interobjectivity in the Holonic
Kosmos” (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/
excerptC/intro-1.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (2003a), “On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical

Spirituality: Response to Habermas and Weis”
(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/habermas/partII.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (2003), “Excerpt G: Toward a Comprehensive Theory of

Subtle Energies” (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/
excerptG/part1.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (2002a), “RNase Enzyme Deficiency Disease: Wilber’s

Statement About His Health”
(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/redd.html).
Wilber, Ken (2002), “Sidebar A: Who Ate Captain Cook? Integral

Historiography in a Postmodern Age” (http://wilber.shambhala.com/
html/books/boomeritis/cook/part3.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (2001c), “Response to McDermott”

(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/mcdermott2.html).
Wilber, Ken (2001b), A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for

Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality (Boston, MA:
Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (2001a [1979]), No Boundary: Eastern and Western

Approaches to Personal Growth (Boston, MA: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (2001), “Do Critics Misrepresent My Position? A Test

Case from a Recent Academic Journal”
(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/critics_01.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (2000e), “Waves, Streams, States, and Self—A

Summary of My Psychological Model (Or, Outline of an Integral
Psychology)” (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/
psych_model/psych_model1.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (2000d), “Announcing the Formation of Integral

Institute”
(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/formation_int_inst.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (2000c [1996]), A Brief History of Everything (Boston,

MA: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (2000b), Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit,

Psychology, Therapy (Boston, MA: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (2000a), One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber

Wilber, Ken (2000), Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, second edition

Wilber, Ken (1999b), “Introduction to the Fourth Volume 4 [sic] of

the Collected Works” (http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/
cowokev4_intro.cfm/xid%2C3419/yid%2C4006550).
Wilber, Ken (1999a [1998]), The Marriage of Sense and Soul:

Integrating Science and Religion (New York: Broadway Books).
Wilber, Ken (1999), “Ken Wilber’s Response to John Heron”

(http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/heron.html).
Wilber, Ken (1998b), “An Update on the Case of Adi Da”

(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/adida_update.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (1998a), “Letter to the Adi Da Community”

(http://www.beezone.com/Wilber/ken_wilbers_letter.html).
Wilber, Ken (1998), The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World
Gone Slightly Mad (Boston, MA: Shambhala).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 631
Wilber, Ken (1996a), “The Case of Adi Da”

(http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/adida.cfm).
Wilber, Ken (1996), A Brief History of Everything (Boston, MA:

Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1995), Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (Boston, MA:

Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1991), Grace and Grit: Spirituality & Healing in the
Life & Death of Treya Killam Wilber (Boulder, CO: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1983b), A Sociable God: Toward a New Understanding

of Religion (Boulder, CO: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1983a), Up from Eden (Boulder, CO: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1983), Eye to Eye (Boulder, CO: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1982), The Holographic Paradigm and Other

Paradoxes (Boulder, CO: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1980), The Atman Project (Boulder, CO: Shambhala).
Wilber, Ken (1977), The Spectrum of Consciousness (Wheaton, IL:

The Theosophical Publishing House).
Willey, David (2002), “Firewalking Myth vs. Physics”

www.pitt.edu/~dwilley/fire.html).
Wills, Garry (2000), Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (New York:

Doubleday).
Wills, Garry (1972), Bare Ruined Choirs: Doubt, Prophecy, and

Radical Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.).
Wilson, Ian (1988), The Bleeding Mind (London: Weidenfeld and

Nicolson).
Winn, Denise (2000 [1983]), The Manipulated Mind: Brainwashing,

Conditioning and Indoctrination (Cambridge, MA: Malor Books).
Wiseman, Richard and Ciaran O’Keeffe (2001), “A Critique of

Schwartz et al.’s After-Death Communication Studies,” in Skeptical
Inquirer, Volume 25, No. 6, November/December
(http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/mediums.html).
Woman #2 (1995), “Declaration of XXX in Support of

Cross-Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint”
(http://www.anandaawareness.com/woman_2.html).
Yates, Frances Amelia (1979), The Occult Philosophy in the

Elizabethan Age (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Yogananda, Paramahansa (1998), Autobiography of a Yogi

Yogananda, Paramahansa (1987 [1953]), The Science of Religion

Yogananda, Paramahansa (1986), The Divine Romance (Los Angeles:

Yogananda, Paramahansa (1985), Beholding the One in All

Yogananda, Paramahansa (1984 [1956]), SRF Lessons (Los Angeles:

Yogananda, Paramahansa (1982), Man’s Eternal Quest (Los Angeles:

Yogananda, Paramhansa (1946), Autobiography of a Yogi

(http://www.ananda.org/inspiration/books/ay/index.html).
Yukteswar, Swami Sri (1977), The Holy Science (Los Angeles:

BIBLIOGRAPHY 633
Zablocki, Benjamin (2001), “Methodological Fallacies in Anthony’s

Critique of Exit Cost Analysis”
(http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~zablocki/Anthony.htm).
Zablocki, Benjamin (1998), “The Birth and Death of New Religious

Movements” (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~zablocki/
birth and death of new religious movements.htm).
Zimbardo, Philip G. (2004b), “A Situationist Perspective on the

Psychology of Evil: Understanding How Good People are
Transformed into Perpetrators,” in A. G. Miller, ed., The Social
Psychology of Good and Evil (New York: Guilford Press; chapter text
available online at http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/evil.pdf).
Zimbardo, Philip G. (2004a), “Power Turns Good Soldiers into ‘Bad

Apples,’” in The Boston Globe, May 9
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/
articles/2004/05/09/power_turns_good_soldiers_into_bad_apples/).
Zimbardo, Philip G. (2004), “Stanford Prison Experiment Slide

Show” (http://www.prisonexp.org).
Zimbardo, Philip G. (2002), “Mind Control: Psychological Reality or

Mindless Rhetoric?” in APA Monitor, Volume 33, No. 10, November
(http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/pc.html).
Zimbardo, Philip G. (1971), “The Power and Pathology of

Imprisonment,” in the Congressional Record (Serial No. 15, October
25). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First
Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and
Prisoner’s Rights: California (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office; text online at
http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/congress.pdf).
Zimbardo, Philip G., Christine Maslach and Craig Haney (2000),

“Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis,
Transformations, Consequences,” in Thomas Blass, ed., Obedience to
Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm (Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum; chapter text online at
http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/blass.pdf).
Zimbardo, Philip G., Craig Haney, William Curtis Banks and David
Jaffe (1973), “The Mind is a Formidable Jailer: A Pirandellian
Prison,” in The New York Times Magazine, April 8 (text online at
http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/pirandellian.pdf).
Zoll, Rachel (2005), “Bishops: New Sex Abuse Claims Top 1,000”
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/
2005-02-18-bishops-abuse_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA).
Zupp, Adrian (2003), “What Would Buddha Do? Why Won’t the
Dalai Lama Pick a Fight?” in Counterpunch, October 11/13
(http://www.counterpunch.org/zupp10112003.html).
PERMISSIONS
Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders of material in

this book. The author and editors apologize if any work has been used
without permission and would be glad to be told of anyone who has
not been consulted. Grateful acknowledgment is made for permission
to quote from the following publications:
Quotations from Dodie Bellamy’s (1995) article, “Eckankar: A For-

mer Member Revisits the Movement,” reprinted with permission of
the San Diego Reader.
Quotations from David Bohm and Basil Hiley’s (1993) The Undi-
vided Universe, reprinted by permission of Thomson Publishing Ser-
vices.
Quotations from David Bohm and F. David Peat’s (1987) Science,

Order, and Creativity, reprinted by permission of Thomson Publish-
ing Services.
Quotations from Mick Brown’s (2000) article, “Divine Downfall,”

reprinted with permission of The Daily Telegraph Saturday Maga-
zine.
Quotations from Stephen Butterfield’s (1994) book, The Double Mir-

ror: A Skeptical Journey into Buddhist Tantra, published by North
Atlantic Books, copyright © 1994 by Stephen T. Butterfield. Re-
printed by permission of the publisher.
635
Quotation from Susan Cohen’s (2002a) article, “Swami Satchidan-

anda, Integral Yoga Institute, Yogaville—A Survivor’s Story,” re-
printed with permission of Rick Ross and the Ross Institute
(www.rickross.com).
Quotations from Shelly Goldstein’s (2002) article, “Bohmian Me-

chanics,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter
(http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/qm-bohm/), re-
printed with permission of Dr. Goldstein.
Quotations from Basil Hiley and F. David Peat’s (1987) Quantum

Implications: Essays in Honor of David Bohm, reprinted by permis-
sion of Thomson Publishing Services.
Quotations from John Horgan’s (2003) article, “The Myth of the To-
tally Enlightened Guru” (http://www.johnhorgan.org/work8.htm),
reprinted with permission of Mr. Horgan.
Quotations from Lake County’s (1985) article, “Believers ‘Surrender’

to Spiritual Master,” reprinted by courtesy of the Lake County
Record-Bee.
Quotation from John Marshall’s (1980) article, “Files Show Spy Re-
ported Woman’s Intimate Words,” reprinted with permission of The
Globe and Mail.
Quotations from Walt Neary’s (1985) article, “Inner Circle Privy to

Parties,” reprinted by courtesy of the Lake County Record-Bee.
Quotations from Narasingha P. Sil’s (1998) book, Ramakrishna Re-

visited: A New Biography, reprinted with permission of University
Press of America, Inc.
Quotations from Andre van der Braak’s (2003) book, Enlightenment

Blues: My Years with an American Guru, reprinted with permission
of Monkfish Book Publishing Company.
ABOUT
THE AUTHOR
Geoffrey D. Falk (www.geoffreyfalk.com) has studied electrical en-

gineering and physics at the University of Manitoba. Following that,
he kicked ass as a best-in-class computer programmer. He currently
divides his time between writing and music composition.
637

Stripping The Gurus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stripping The Gurus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stripping The Gurus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRIPPING THE GURUS

Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment*

Armed with wit, insight, and truly astonishing research,

Stripping the Gurus is superb—one of the best books of its

This gripping and disturbing book should be read by anyone

Geoffrey Falk’s delightful but disturbing unmasking of reli-

No one involved in contemporary spirituality can afford to

* The inclusion of any particular individual in this book

Published by Million Monkeys Press

ISBN: 0-9736203-3-1 (pdf)

This eBook is not copy-protected. It is, however, copy-

The writing of this book required an investment of over

Printable posters and flyers, suitable for posting/dis-

Trademarks: “TM” and “Transcendental Meditation” are

Credits and permissions can be found on the Permissions

XXIII Up the Asana ........................................................ 261

Essential Online Resources ............................................................ 537

ONE OF MY DEAR, late mother’s most memorable expressions, in at-

[I]f some reader, somewhere, takes a moment’s pause and

Or, as Margery Wakefield (1991) expressed her own opinion:

As trite as it may sound, if I can prevent even one other per-

Second, I personally spent the worst nine months of my life at

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the peo-

As the Dalai Lama (1999) expressed his own opinion, regarding

I respect and appreciate the media’s interference.... It is appro-

As to the quantity of reported “sins” covered non-complimentari-

April, 2005 Geoffrey D. Falk

It is so, simply because it attempts to expose, to a wider audi-

• Ramakrishna, whose worship of the Divine Mother did not

• Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who reportedly once admitted,

ertheless, it is those alleged worst aspects, not the often-advertised

[Ramakrishna] is a figure of recent history and his life and

Ramakrishna ... gained recognition from his devotees and ad-

I am an avatar. I am God in human form (Ramakrishna, in

THE STORY OF YOGA and yogis in the West—and of their correspond-

As a child, the boy Ramakrishna—who later claimed to be the

Indeed, after having met his foremost disciple, Vivekananda, for

I ran to the northern quarter of the garden, a rather unfre-

Ramakrishna went on to describe his favorite disciple variously

[W]e cannot ignore [Ramakrishna’s] obsession with the anus

Of course, none of Ramakrishna’s documented homoerotic be-

I am terribly scared of women.... I see them as a tigress coming

If my body is touched by a woman I feel sick.... The

Even the mere sight of a woman could reportedly so negatively

either run to the temple or invoke the strategy of escape by get-

On other occasions, the mention of any object which Rama-

During his ascetic practices, Ramakrishna exhibited remark-

During the days of my [“holy”] madness [as priest of the Kali

[Ramakrishna] considered swear words [to be] as meaningful

Indeed, as the claimed avatar himself told his devotees:

That is actually not quite as odd as it might initially seem, for

[W]hile regarding her husband as God, Sarada came to be con-

Such was evidently the compensation for her being confined to

[Ramakrishna was] one of the truly great saints of nineteenth-

In a demonstration of the high regard with which every loyal disciple

Hriday, the Master’s nephew and companion, actually regard-

[Vivekananda] is seen not just as a patriot-prophet of resurgent

Perfect from his birth, [Vivekananda] did not need spiritual

BORN IN 1863 IN CALCUTTA, Vivekananda began meditating at age