Citizen Initiative

www.citizeninitiative.com

Guide to contents

Wikipedia neutrality – Sathya Sai Baba controversy – User SSS108 alias Gerald (Joe) Moreno – his accusations against ex-devotee Robert Priddy – the credentials of Priddy – Basava Premanand and the Indian Rationalists – the appendices in Kevin Shepherd’s book – Moreno’s file in Wikipedia attacking Shepherd – the annotated books of Shepherd – Grof therapy advocates misled by Moreno file – anonymity in Wikipedia a controversial issue – Shepherd’s accurate citation – V. K. Narasimhan and the 1993 murders in Sathya Sai’s bedroom – revealing BBC documentary The Secret Swami – Sathya Sai canonical works at issue – a writer making a philosophical point – psychology in science outside the academic role – the Rajneesh cult and Peter Russell – Wikipedia and suspicious organisations – the Sathya Sai Organisation has lost subscribers – Priddy writes to Shepherd – a decade with no funding at Cambridge University Library – anthropography conceived at Cambridge under Corpus Christi auspices – Prof. Glen Schaefer fails to recruit Shepherd – Citizen Initiative books and justifying reasons for self-publishing – Wikipedia analysis of Shepherd’s scholarly books – Shepherd eschews miracles – Shirdi Sai Baba had a different lifestyle to Sathya Sai Baba – the most significant configuration of guru figures in twentieth century Indian history – Shepherd’s emphasis on Shirdi Sai as a Muslim Sufi vindicated by Dr. Marianne Warren – The Findings by David and Faye Bailey cause internet revelations – Dr. Warren becomes an ex-devotee and leaves Toronto – neutrality abused in Wikipedia – the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. – update on David Bailey – Priddy’s tip of the iceberg – Sathya Sai as sexual molester – the alleged vice ring in Sathya Sai colleges – the citizen initiative effort to educate – the credentials of Moreno – pro-Sai activism – the issue of paedophilia – Christian fundamentalists – the Shirdi Sai devotees – the defamation issue – the porno site issue – Sathya Sai fundamentalism – Dr. M. Goldstein alias “doctor from hell” – the devotee Isaac Tigrett – Premanand survives four murder attempts – report of Duncan Roads – report of Terry Gallagher – the 1993 bedroom murders – the banned book by Tal Brooke – important testimonies to sexual abuse – Ulrich Zimmermann’s video interviews considered a major blow to devotee beliefs – the litigation of Alaya Rahm – Gerald Moreno’s interview with Sathya Sai Baba – Dr. Jack Hislop’s cover-up letters – the shock report on child abuse from the Indian Government – Jimmy Wales versus Larry Sanger, or Wikipedia Vs Citizendium, heavyweight contest of the internet encyclopaedias – Kevin Shepherd’s version of individual rights and respect for reason – Wikipedia bans Moreno and two colleagues – Andries Krugers Dagneaux – Wikipedia neutrality and cult manifestations – the Holotropic Breathwork entry in Wikipedia – The Guardian report on Sathya Sai and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme – Sai Youth UK – FAIR pass critical comment on the Award scheme – the celibate code of Hinduism – Michael Gove gives a verdict – Prince Philip in contention – the Buckingham Palace garden party – Tony Blair and INFORM – Prof. Alexander Dvorkin versus Prof. Eileen Barker – the Shepherd circulars of 2006 – the Alister Hardy Trust in contention – scepticism about the sociology of religion – a definition of cultism – the career of Robert Priddy – the career of Basava Premanand – Gerald Moreno’s website and blogs – the ex-believer Alan Kazlev – Conny Larsson and Barry Pittard

---

 

Part One: Gerald Moreno's bias against Robert Priddy and Kevin R. D. Shepherd, and how Dr. Marianne Warren became an ex-devotee

Based in America, Wikipedia pursues an ideal of “neutral point of view” in filing the many contributions comprising this internet encyclopaedia. The phrase “neutral point of view” can be differently interpreted. Individual initiative is allowed for, and so flexibility is seen as desirable. Yet some assessors complain that Wikipedia is host to many trends and points of view which are seriously flawed. What are the applicable rules to deal with extreme POV (point of view) pushers? Some commentators stress tolerance, while others warn of the dangers involved in accommodating views that are very controversial or extremist in nature. For instance, cults or related trends can nurture forms of abuse which get out of control and require firm analysis and elucidation for the benefit of public health.

Sathya (Satya) Sai Baba (b. 1926) of Puttaparthi is an Indian guru with considerable influence in his own country. He has become controversial because of the many strong allegations of sexual abuse made against him. Some of his followers have demonstrated zealous tendencies in their support of his claims. An American defender of Sathya Sai Baba is Gerald (Joe) Moreno, alias User SSS108, who has recently been banned (indefinitely) from Wikipedia. The irony here is that Moreno attempted to create a cordon in Wikipedia files against critics of Sathya Sai Baba. Yet it is Moreno himself who has been decisively cordoned off by Wikipedia arbitrators as the consequence of a memorable vote occurring in March 2007.

Gerald Moreno became widely noted for attempting to remove the Robert Priddy web page from Wikipedia files. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Priddy. The named webmaster here is a prominent ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba who has drawn attention to problems of abuse associated with the guru whom he followed for nearly two decades. Moreno made accusations against Priddy such as “vanity publishing,” lack of notability, and lack of references. Those accusations supposedly rendered invalid the substantial data supplied by Priddy. Yet those accusations were not at all convincing in view of Robert Priddy’s former long-term salience in the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation (Norway branch), and also his industrious use of relevant information pooled from numerous ex-devotees and others. The credentials of Moreno were apparently beyond dispute.

 

The credentials of Robert Priddy (b. 1936) are actually quite strong. Of British nationality, he researched and taught philosophy and sociology at the University of Oslo during the years 1968–85. His various scientific writings were published by that University. He afterwards wrote many articles in Sanathana Sarathi, the official magazine of the Sathya Sai Organisation, though he no longer deems those contributions to be appropriate. He also wrote the well known partisan work Source of the Dream: My Way to Sathya Sai Baba (1994). He afterwards resigned his official role in the Sathya Sai Organisation (Norway branch). He subsequently maintained prominent critical websites about the guru, and has contributed the lengthy dissident work End of the Dream: The Sathya Sai Baba Enigma. Collected Articles of Robert Priddy (2004). Priddy’s Homepage is at http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html. See Note One below.

Internet revelations since the year 2000 have seriously upset the image of the “miracle guru” and the “social benefactor guru.” The miracles of Sathya Sai Baba have been exposed as trickery and sleight of hand, while the popular role of benefactor is gravely compromised by strongly alleged behind the scenes activities of sexual abuse. It was obvious that American devotees now feared the Wikipedia link with websites associated with Robert Priddy and other ex-devotees who have expressed many complaints at the movement (or Organisation) which they view as a cult.

Robert Priddy’s book End of the Dream (2004) is a very informative collection of internet articles relating to Sathya Sai Baba. This book had been published in India by Basava Premanand at the latter’s special request. Premanand is a major Indian critic of Sathya Sai Baba, and a formidable lobbyist for Rationalism (and is the leader of the growing contingent known as the Indian Rationalists). The publications of Premanand do not come under the category of vanity publishing, but something quite different, both in a political and social context of complaint at abuses and deceptions associated with so-called holy men (not just Sathya Sai Baba, be it noted). See Note Two below.

The Robert Priddy page has been supplemented with documented references and was unblocked by administrators for a second time (having twice been subjected to arbitration due to the Moreno stigma). The Priddy page is now exonerated, relying upon testimonies of events, not supporter biases. Those biases had also created confusions relating to another writer. The Priddy page includes references to a book by Kevin R. D. Shepherd (b. 1950), who is not a devotee or an ex-devotee, but an independent British researcher who included critical ex-devotee sources on Sathya Sai Baba in the form of appendices. Shepherd’s Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (2005) is an annotated work of some complexity. Gerald Moreno took a dislike to the appendices, and pressed to remove Shepherd from Wikipedia files also, using similar arguments to those he had employed against Priddy. In October 2006, Moreno produced a separate file attacking Kevin Shepherd, a file which now has the repute of being an obsolete and ill-advised attempt to eliminate relevant documentation. The subversive file comprised a discussion between Moreno and three other contributors to the Sathya Sai Baba entry in Wikipedia. All except one of these contributors expressed biases in favour of the guru, though the convoluted wordings vainly attempted to offset such an impression. The device used to eliminate the unwanted data was a quote which merely included reference to Kevin Shepherd in association with Priddy (see below). There was no attempt at due analysis of Investigating. Instead, Gerald Moreno opted to dismiss the entire corpus of Kevin Shepherd as being of no consequence. Wikipedia neutrality can be a very suspect phenomenon.

The implication of Moreno that Kevin R. D. Shepherd is another vanity publisher posed extreme difficulties of acceptance to informed analysts. Amongst the many annotated books of Kevin Shepherd is a thousand page work using specialist sources of formidable multi-lingual Iranist scholars and Indological experts in Sanskrit and Indian vernacular languages. The first two copies sold by the leading academic bookshop in Cambridge went to a prominent Iranist scholar in Italy and to an important university library in Tehran. The study tempo in such environments is somewhat different to the relaxed pace of exclusionism operative in American cultism. That book of Kevin Shepherd was furthermore the first volume of a two volume work extending to varied subjects necessitating the author’s presence in an academic library in Britain. Minds and Sociocultures is entirely non-commercial in orientation, and represents a degree of familiarity with learned journals and other academic heavy reading which few non-professorial writers have achieved in the last fifty years. Kevin Shepherd is noted for resorting to scholarly and professorial data instead of popular writer output, the latter being more at risk of error in commercial pronouncements and theories.

A Wikipedia editor (of Ph.D. status) was quick to defend the Shepherd corpus from what was considered to be barbarian misconception in a Wikipedia file relating to alternative therapy, an entry which had been adversely influenced by the Moreno file against Shepherd. The absence of neutrality is contagious in simplistic biases. The advocates of Grof alternative therapy were misled by the Moreno file, being completely unfamiliar with Kevin Shepherd and his writings. The Wikipedia editor stated to the Grof therapy supporters: “You misrepresent Kevin Shepherd, as he appears to have consistently been involved in self-publishing, for reasons clearly stated in his books, not vanity publishing. His titles are easily available from Amazon.co.uk and Blackwells online.… Instead of worrying about the ‘reputability’ of Kevin Shepherd, you need to consider the objectivity and connections of aggressive attempts to prevent access to any and all historically grounded, well articulated scholarly criticism of highly controversial subjects, such as Sathya Sai Baba.… It is clear that Kevin Shepherd’s work is in good repute with academic researchers in comparative religion.” (Jedermann, Nov. 26th and Nov. 22nd edits, 2006, appearing in the extended talk pages of the Holotropic Breathwork entry in Wikipedia.)

Gerald Moreno is not noted for any library research, though he is an industrious composer of blogs and other internet materials in the cause of Sathya Sai Baba. Moreno identified himself as User SSS108 in his Wikipedia file against Shepherd. Anonymity in Wikipedia is a controversial issue elsewhere. In this instance, the anonymity of Moreno contributed to the uninformed belief of certain Grof therapy exponents that User SSS108 was an academic expert employing an official numberplate of unimpeachable authority.

Moreno made much of a Wikipedia quote that he disputed, and it is alarming that such a slender pretext could pass muster as neutrality in defamation and avoidance of extensive data. The quote read: “According to Kevin Shepherd, the former national leader of the Sathya Sai movement in Norway, Robert Priddy, expressed the opinion that Sathya Sai Baba was an accomplice to the 1993 murders, among others based on information given to him by his friend V. K. Narasimhan.” Moreno’s unconvincing contradiction was very deceptively filed as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SSS108/Kevin_Shepherd. The citation by Shepherd was accurate, as the confronting editor Andries Dagneaux duly emphasised. Priddy’s source of information was here particularly relevant, as Narasimhan was the close servitor of Sathya Sai Baba and the former editor of the guru’s monthly journal. Moreno ignored all the relevant cues and instead argued dogmatically for the “Removal of reference to Shepherd” in a vein that reflected the partisan mood of eliminating objections to the strongly alleged paedophile guru who is closely associated with terrorism. The abovementioned quote was treated as “potentially libellous comment.” There must be no criticism of cult figures, in other words, and all evidence must be discarded. Moreno also affirmed that he did not consider Robert Priddy a reliable source, an adverse reflection representing the outlook of the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation, which is anything but neutral on such points.

The anti-Shepherd file of Gerald Moreno failed to mention the lengthy book written by Basava Premanand entitled Murders in Sai Baba’s Bedroom (2001). This detailed work probes and presses the strong allegations concerning the 1993 murders which sent a shock wave through the Sathya Sai movement. Those allegations are habitually denied and ignored by the devotees, but promoted by ex-devotees, and duly scrutinised by interested outsiders to the cult. In India those and all other allegations have been squashed by the large number of influential devotees of Sathya Sai Baba, a number of whom occupy prominent political and administrative positions. Why were four young men killed by the Indian police at the guru’s ashram? See also Shepherd, Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, pp. 293ff., for a coverage of Robert Priddy’s important materials. Various details of abuse surfaced in the BBC documentary (available as a video) entitled The Secret Swami (2004), which profiled allegations and denials in a striking manner, serving to further impress outsiders that something very dubious is at issue.

Moreno’s attack on Shepherd depicts the non-canonical literature on Sathya Sai Baba in terms of “poorly sourced controversial material” amounting to “biased or malicious content.” This refrain reflects sectarian preference, not neutrality or due statement of complexities. Cf. Shepherd, Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, pp. 163–5 note 2 for reference to some canonical sources, including the biography/hagiography of Kasturi and the multi-volume Sathya Sai Speaks, both of which have received strong criticism from ex-devotees. The canonical or so-called “primary” works of Sathya Sai Baba are extremely misleading. The partisan literature includes some well known books on the guru that were written by devotees who subsequently defected when discovering the truth about the sexually molesting Sathya Sai. Certain of those books are still being sold by unscrupulous publishers who contribute to public confusion.

The non-neutral tactics of Moreno implied that both Priddy and Shepherd could be dismissed as unimportant writers conveying material disliked by the Sathya Sai Organisation. Moreno improvised a statement headed “Information about Kevin R. D. Shepherd.” This granted two and a half lines which stated accusingly that there were no online references and no media articles about Shepherd. The British writer is noted in other circles for not promoting himself or his books on the media or on the internet, according to a philosophy that is alien to Sathya Sai partisans. Shepherd considers such promotions to be indulgent, though he has recently been advised to be more publicity-conscious after his abstinence of over twenty years duration. He has capitulated to the advice, agreeing that larger concerns are now in jeopardy by adhering to low profile codes. Moreno’s defamatory file depicts Shepherd and Citizen Initiative as not being on the status map, though the latter is listed in the Directory of UK and Irish Book Publishers, which also has a website. Writers who wish to make a philosophical point are not obliged to register in the various directories of high-tech commerce, especially if the commerce disables so much public education. The predatory nature of much big business, like that of cult abuses, is not something to be celebrated by independent thinkers.

Gerald Moreno erroneously dated Kevin Shepherd’s first book to 1984, and without supplying the title. The date was actually 1983, and the title was Psychology in Science, with one sub-title declaring The relevance of new models in the interdisciplinary study of psychology. That book sold almost exclusively to university libraries and academic readers in different countries. An enthusiastic Professor (a physicist and ecologist of distinction) wished to enrol the author in the academic profession, but was politely declined. On the other hand, Shepherd has never pandered to a general audience, and declined to be the subject of a video interview with Nielsen Bookdata in 2005.

Kevin Shepherd was one of those who warned against the dangers in the Rajneesh cult, which was elsewhere sanctioned by such new age writers as Peter Russell, who sold meditation and other contrived assets to big business in the “consultancy” vogue starting in the 70s (Psychology in Science, pp. 51, 197). The Rajneesh cult subsequently demonstrated terrorist tendencies in Oregon, those events including the case of a formerly placid and harmless woman (Catherine Jane Paul) who decided in 1985 to prove her devotion to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh by committing murder. (See R. Guilliatt, “It was a Time of Madness,” The Weekend Australian Magazine, June 17th–18th 2006, 22–28). The murder attempt backfired, but some of the propaganda lives on. Some details about the Rajneesh cult were slow to percolate the media.

Citizen researchers are not obliged to disappear because of “new age” and cultist preferences for obscurantism, including those hosted by Wikipedia. There are a large number of suspicious organisations promoted in the files of the free encyclopaedia, and realistic data is always preferable. Reliable details can be found about the Sathya Sai Organisation in dissident websites such as ExBaba.com. Further, Robert Priddy can lay claim to an extensive correspondence with abused devotees that demolishes the myth of Sathya Sai Baba as a social benefactor and spiritual authority. A large number of devotees have dissociated from the Sathya Sai Organisation, and this glaring fact cannot be ignored by onlookers like Kevin Shepherd.

Priddy and Shepherd have been in contact, and in a letter dated 21/05/06, Priddy told Shepherd: “Thank you very much for contacting me, and not least for summarising many of my most important contentions regarding Sathya Sai Baba so succinctly and accurately in your book.” That book is Investigating the Sai Baba Movement. Much of the progressive work in these subjects is done by informed and independent amateurs who do not get paid for their researches.

In respect of more extensive studies, Shepherd spent a decade with no official funding or salary at Cambridge University Library (CUL), researching at his own expense and volition, accumulating many notebooks. He was initially assisted by a benevolent senior academic (a psychologist) who was a Fellow of Corpus Christi College. The auspices of Corpus Christi were thus attendant upon Shepherd’s sponsored entry to CUL in January 1981. His approach to study was encyclopaedic, and tackled many books and learned journals on the sciences, philosophy, and religion. He conceived of an interdisciplinary science which he called anthropography, and which found expression in an early manuscript that was later published as Meaning in Anthropos (1991). He declined Prof. Schaefer’s offer of Ph.D. elevation, partly because he preferred an unfettered exploration of the many shelves at CUL, plus the vaults and Rare Books Room. As Shepherd has since stressed, CUL had unrivalled facilities for shelf access. He did not study for a career, and this puzzled some of his acquaintances. Yet he did form ideas about writing books, though his conspectus was too complex for assimilation by Routledge. Cambridge University Press were evasive, also without seeing any manuscript. The evident barrier was the factor of independent research. Shepherd thereafter published most of his own books in a spirit of complete independence. He has composed an autobiographical memoir of such events. He also has a file of unfinished manuscripts which he composed over the years, and these include an analysis of ancient cultures which “just got left on the shelf” due to his proliferating studies in religion. All his published works are annotated, which has been deemed noteworthy for a person with no academic role. In 1986 he was obliged to create a small business for his livelihood. He later transited from library studies to “fieldwork,” living independently from the Findhorn Foundation in both Findhorn village and Forres during a notable phase which supplied the basis of his unusual perspective on the new age.

His most important book is probably Pointed Observations (2005), which comprises a basic statement of Citizen Initiative. Yet the two support volumes exhibit a substantial annotated content. There are over 800 notes in Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals (2004), while Investigating the Sai Baba Movement has 480 notes spanning over a hundred pages, and which relate to three different sects. The notes in that 300 page volume comprise one third of the text, which is the proportion found in the more exacting scholarly works produced by university presses, and strongly associated with the traditions of Cambridge and Oxford, the milieu in which Kevin Shepherd conducted his basic decade of unpaid research. Shepherd has cited in his various works many hundreds of scholarly books and many articles from learned journals, including the hard core scientific and linguistic varieties. He is considered by more appropriate (and neutral) analysts than Moreno to come under the category of the “justifying reasons for self-publishing” that are referred to in academic ranks and acknowledged by Wikipedia.

An academic assessor in an Australian University has commentated on the Shepherd corpus from the angle of his own former experience in high profile bookselling firms: “Shepherd’s case is unusual. He is an atypical writer, a non-academic who has researched in Cambridge University Library and published a number of scholarly books. His Mind and Sociocultures Vol. One is over 1000 pages long, has maps, appendices, notes and an index. There are 461 notes to the main text (with a further 280 notes to the introduction), and the index alone is 43 pages long. His other books are similar with respect to the quality of scholarly apparatus. It is unlikely in the extreme that any publisher would have taken on such a book, especially from a non-academic. Shepherd is realistic about his abilities, and prefers to be regarded as a scholarly amateur. He is scrupulous in his use of (citations of) specialist scholars, though he is occasionally critical of academics (and academic publishers) when they endorse what he regards as dubious persons and practices. By self-publishing, he maintains his authorial independence, although he suffers from the lack of resources provided by commercial and academic publishing houses. His books have high production values (I speak here as a professional bookseller) and are presumably expensive to produce. He does not seem to gain financially from their sale, nor in any other way as far as I can see. He does not promote any organisation or religious persuasion.” (Jan. 2007 edit, Wikipedia, Holotropic Breathwork entry talk extension). For the record here, Minds and Sociocultures Vol.One was published by a freelance publisher, not by Shepherd, who objected to the deadline imposed by advertising considerations, which he invariably overlooks.

The latest published work of Kevin Shepherd is Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (2005). This is free of the obsession with “miracles” that is evident in other portrayals of Sai Baba of Shirdi (Shirdi Sai Baba), an obsession often closely related to tastes for the deceitful showmanship of Sathya Sai Baba. The latter claims to be a reincarnation of the former, who died in 1918. Yet the lifestyle of these entities shows marked differences. The three appendices on Sathya Sai dispense with obscurantism, covering the recent exposure of that guru as a fraud and sexual molester. Moreno reacted from the angle of the cult supporter, attempting to elevate outmoded canonical works as “primary sources” at the expense of radical data supplied by abused devotees and ex-devotees. Readers now have a clear choice: the partisan evasion of sexual molestation and allied terrorism or the Priddy-Shepherd output of sober analysis. Some perceptive academics have decided accordingly, and have considered Investigating the Sai Baba Movement to be the most discerning and impactive of the accounts published about the three major figures of the purported “movement” claimed by some Sathya Sai partisans. Those three figures are Shirdi Sai (Baba), Upasni (Baba) Maharaj (d. 1941), and Meher Baba (d. 1969). Shepherd has an acquaintance with some of the literature that goes back over forty years, and he has written an unpublished tome on one figure involved.

Some analysts now say that Shepherd’s Investigating charts the most significant configuration of guru figures in twentieth century Indian history, and that this book is the new guide to the subjects encompassed. Even Ramana Maharshi and Shri Aurobindo now recede in political significance.

Shepherd’s earlier book Gurus Rediscovered (1986) was acknowledged even by some Sathya Sai Baba partisans (notably Dr. Rigopoulos) as a ground-breaking work. This was because he emphasised that Shirdi Sai was a Muslim Sufi and not a Hindu. That emphasis has been vindicated by some other researchers, primarily Dr. Marianne Warren, who was for years a follower of Sathya Sai Baba but who eventually repudiated that guru. Shepherd includes data from the first edition of her book Unravelling the Enigma (1999) in his Investigating, though with a pointed response to some errors detected. A subsequent revised edition (2004) of Dr. Warren’s book indicated that her orientation had changed. She sent to Robert Priddy the memo entitled Sathya Sai Baba – Godman or Con-man, which included the following statement:

“Devastating news came in the form of revelations made available on the internet. In April 2000 these revelations were published under the innocuous title of The Findings. These were a collection of stories, affidavits, letters etc, compiled by David and Faye Bailey from ex-devotees, and revealed various hitherto unknown or hidden aspects of Sathya Sai’s behaviour and practices that were fraudulent and sexually explicit. There were strong allegations of homosexual paedophilia. These revelations brought an instant response from myself and my husband, as well as many others around the world, to distance ourselves as soon as possible from the Swami (Sathya Sai Baba). We had been volunteers in various aspects of the (Sathya Sai Baba) Organisation, but dropped these activities immediately. Few could credit that the Swami (Sathya Sai Baba) who had repeatedly declared his divinity could be involved in these dreadful acts, but evidence soon mounted. The content of The Findings and subsequent revelations is the subject of this present book, which therefore is not the work I originally intended to write. As a result of all the investigations, research, allegations and revelations, I present this document as objectively as possible, as a warning to those who may discover the literature of Sathya Sai Baba and all the extraordinary claims, and are tempted to believe it.”

Dr. Warren’s original plan had been to write a second book on the theme of what Sathya Sai Baba had said about Shirdi Sai. She subsequently understood that this theme was a major red herring for the gullible, and states in her memo that she would not include the statements of Sathya Sai Baba about the Shirdi saint, as these “are not independently verifiable.”

Shepherd has conceded that Dr. Warren demonstrated a due integrity in her changed attitudes, and has expressed sorrow at her death (in 2004), of which he was informed by Priddy.

The memo of Dr. Warren above-cited was a draft introduction to her proposed second book, which did not materialise because of her death. Some web pages on Dr. Warren can be found at http://home.chello.no/~reirob/W/Index.htm. Those pages include an excerpt from correspondence between Dr. Warren and Robert Priddy dated Feb. 2003. Dr. Warren (of Toronto University) here says:

“In my (published) book on Shirdi Sai Baba, I felt I could not use much of what Sathya Sai Baba had said because none of it was verifiable (although I was a devotee at the time). But it is amazing how much of what he has said has become an integral part of the accepted hagiography (of Shirdi Sai). Even Rigopoulos was not discriminating enough in his book on Shirdi Sai, accepting Sathya Sai’s pronouncements as gospel.… I have quite a lot of material other than the Shirdi material, for an anti-Sathya Sai Baba book, as I was involved in Toronto Sathya Sai Baba Centres in Canada for 20 years and the Sathya Sai Baba Book and Information Centre for 10 years. There were many things that occurred during those years that made one entertain doubts.… When we went back (to the ashram) in the late 1990s, a bank was established in the ashram grounds and I was rudely asked by a sevadal (ashram assistant) which line I was in. Amazed, I asked what the lines were for – and found out that one was to withdraw money or change traveller’s cheques and one was to donate to Sathya Sai Baba. The Sathya Sai Baba donation line was very long! For two years after The Findings, my husband and I were devastated. We got rid of all the (Sathya Sai Baba) pictures and altar and we decided to retire early to Mexico. It’s the best decision we ever made, and now we have largely cut ourselves off from the Sathya Sai Baba community in Toronto. There are many Sri Lankans who have emigrated there, and there are huge Sri Lankan and Indian Sathya Sai Baba Centres there supporting a Sathya Sai School. Western [i.e. non-Indian or non-Ceylonese] Canadians were relatively few. After two years of getting ourselves established in Mexico, I began to look again at the ex-Baba [i.e. ex-Sathya Sai Baba devotee] material on the internet and was horrified at all the revelations [i.e. exposures which were multiplying]. These I feel need to be widely publicised.”

None of this is mentioned by Gerald Moreno, who was intent in his proscribing Wikipedia files to eliminate Priddy and Shepherd. The marked suppression serves to underline the drawbacks in abused Wikipedia neutrality. Elements of manipulation have been observed in other Wikipedia entries relating to cult figures, e.g., Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (d. 1990), who continues to be glossed and exalted by partisans. These are some of the reasons why the “citizen encyclopaedia” is viewed in some quarters as a deficient form of media. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc., and some observers feel that more effort should be made by the beneficiaries to counteract drawbacks.

Appendix One of Investigating covers details mentioned in The Findings, a pivotal exposé composed by the ex-devotees David and Faye Bailey. This document produced a surge of shock reactions when it was promoted on the internet in 2000. Some devotees recognised the truth of the reporting and themselves became objectors, though others refused to acknowledge the increasing allegations. A tragedy is that David Bailey went into oblivion after suffering various attacks and put-downs by apologists for Sathya Sai Baba. According to Priddy, Bailey was “attacked so horribly” that he had decided to withdraw from the scene of argument (believing that the opposition was beyond correction, and totally irrational). According to Priddy also, Shepherd was the only enquirer able to coax a brief reply from Bailey (via Priddy) after years of isolation from the Sathya Sai controversy. Shepherd has never been a devotee of Sathya Sai, and has expressed disgust at the internal machinations of the sect in question.

Certain statements in recent letters from Priddy to Shepherd should here be included:

“The amount of evidence that has surfaced on the internet since 2000 from the sexually abused (by Sathya Sai Baba) is the tip of the iceberg. Nearly all who contact us want to remain completely anonymous.… because the persons involved have to consider their family, friends, employers, etc.… I have pieced together the facts and am convinced from all my contacts (mostly confidential, many scared to be known about) that Sathya Sai Baba has molested many boys throughout many years.”

This appalling situation is made even worse by the known details about homosexual pupils of the guru who have become addicted to sexual contact with hapless boys in the Sathya Sai Baba colleges. Shepherd refers to this subject in Appendix Three of his informative book. The “vice ring” theme has a shock impact in some sectors, as nobody knows how extensive this actually is. Reports given by victims are sufficient to strongly imply a paedophile ring, or a ring of sexual molesters who incorporate paedophile activity in their agenda. Sathya Sai Baba is the clear cause of, and inspiration for, this aberration, himself being a strongly alleged molester of different age groups. That aberration, with whatever extensions it may have in other countries, will inevitably be zealous in resisting exposure, and will rely upon the fear of the abused to conceal their identities in the scenario of duplicity, violence, and acute bad habits. Some critics say that the Sathya Sai Baba cult is deducible as the worst known manifestation of abuse currently in existence, making even the Rajneesh cult of the 80s look a lightweight deviation by comparison.

Yet all such data and implications are resisted outright by the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation, who prefer to cultivate the image of the “miracle” guru and the public benefactor. The establishment of colleges and distributions to the poor cannot offset or justify the deficit supplied in testimonies of the abused (see below). The interlinking reports of Priddy, Bailey, and other ex-devotees are a landmark in the history of cultism. Further, the attempted deposition of Kevin Shepherd’s publishing effort by Gerald Moreno (and his alleged backers) conspires to obstruct the due passage of public information about molesting activities and related excesses.

In conclusion here, Kevin Shepherd’s logo of Citizen Initiative is not a big business imprint accompanied by the words Ltd or Inc. The citizen initiative denoted here is an effort to educate from the beleaguered situation of repressed information struggling against diverse forms of abuse and evasion.

 

Part Two: Profile of Gerald (Joe) Moreno and the Testimonies to strongly alleged sexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba

We have seen that Gerald Moreno was zealous enough to deny the qualifications and notability of Robert Priddy and Kevin Shepherd in his suppressive measures utilising Wikipedia files. What then are the credentials of Moreno? Would these encourage us to accept the lofty claims of Sathya Sai Baba? Would such neutrality achieve the most beneficial point of view?

Investigators should consult Moreno’s item entitled “Frequently Asked Questions about Sathya Sai Baba and this Sai Baba website.” That item can be found on his Saisathyasai website, and bears the sub-title “Exposing Critic’s Smear-Campaigns Against Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.” Moreno refers to ex-devotees and others as Anti-Sai Activists, and he says that the purpose of his website is to “expose the lies, deceit, misrepresentations, conflations, exaggerations and contradictory allegations” attributed to this contingent. He says that he has received hate mail and even a death threat. One is led to believe that the ex-devotees must be a very sour and vindictive bunch, indeed exemplars of “group thuggery tactics.” Yet the pro-Sai activist insists that he is not a devotee, though he was one until the age of twenty-five. Moreno says that he left the Sathya Sai movement because he had “basic philosophical differences of opinion” in relation to the teaching of Sathya Sai, especially God concepts and karma. He states “I am an open-minded (but not gullible) agnostic.” The pro-Sai activist also states that “I do not try to suppress other viewpoints.” Some find that statement very difficult to believe.

Moreno denies the allegation of being secretly funded in his internet activity. He complains that the anti-Sai websites refuse to provide links to his own website, a reluctance which he interprets in terms of an “agenda of hate and propaganda at any cost.” Moreno states the number of anti-Sai websites as being twenty-two, and it is clear that he regards them as dire enemies. He says that he does not believe that Sathya Sai is God (relating to the theme of the guru as avatar), but he does believe that Sathya Sai possesses “genuine paranormal powers.” His glaringly obvious partisan orientation is unusually zealous in the castigation of dissidents.

The pro-Sai activist says that he gave the benefit of the doubt to alleged sexual abuse victims until May 2006, prior to which date he believed that Sathya Sai did abuse male devotees. This switch in attitude facilitates strong denial tendencies. Moreno was evidently influenced by the failed lawsuit of Alaya Rahm, a testifier to abuse. That lawsuit occurred in America and encountered problems of evasion. Moreno denies the allegations of paedophilia, stating that there are no testimonies from boys or their parents in this direction, and that the youngest male (Jed Geyerhahn) to give a testimony to sexual abuse was sixteen years old. This argument has been observed to ignore complexities such as anonymous Indian boys scared to give their identity because of their indoctrinated devotee parents. Instead, we are told that the anti-Sai activists “are a mob of angry, vindictive and hateful individuals who place their own agenda of deceit and dishonesty above all else.” See http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/faq.html. Accessed on 27/04/2007.

The Moreno pro-Sai website targets “critics, sceptics and ex-devotees.” References to Christian fundamentalists and “white supremacists” also occur, and Moreno states that he received a racist email denigrating Sathya Sai. One may here add that Christian fundamentalist types have been attacking Hinduism since the 1890s when Swami Vivekananda delivered his Vedantic lectures in the West, but Moreno does not chart that trend, and instead conflates different camps. Such factors must not cloud the due analysis of events in relation to abuses or deceits of presumed miracles (on which account Sathya Sai is also notorious). Moreno further complains that “since Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, there are some Shirdi Sai Baba devotees who deride him as a fake and an impostor.” The Shirdi Sai contingent have more justification than Christian fundamentalists, and the reincarnation claim is a strong issue evocative of opportunism. The Shirdi Sai contingent have elaborated their own legends which require due appraisal (a feat associated with Kevin Shepherd and Dr. Marianne Warren). Insofar as the ex-devotees of Sathya Sai are concerned, it is clear enough that they are not racists or fundamentalists, but instead disillusioned and sometimes emotionally wounded people. Fatalities of suicide are reported to have occurred in the ranks of the abused. It is very important to see what is happening here. One former believer in the Moreno pro-Sai website has contributed a strong critique of that source and the accompanying blogs. See Note Three below.

 

 

Turning to other internet sources, one finds that ex-devotees have much to say about Gerald (“Joe”) Moreno of New Mexico. He is notorious amongst them for blatantly distorted portrayals of the critics of Sathya Sai Baba. He is not known to have written any books, but does employ extensive web pages and blogs. His slanders have included an infamous attack on Robert Priddy which has been rebutted in detail. See “Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno on Wikipedia, and refutation of his allegations against Robert Priddy,” an article which can be viewed at http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Moreno_slander_against_Robert_Priddy.htm. Moreno has also lost in his bizarre attempt at defamation of Barry Pittard, another ex-devotee and strong critic of Sathya Sai Baba. See “Serious Defamation Attempt by Gerald Moreno Defeated,” http://www.saiguru.net/english/articles/130serious_defamation_attempt.htm. This item emphasises that the aim of Moreno and his backers is to divert attention from the strongly alleged crimes and deceptions of Sathya Sai Baba. Moreno has gained the reputation of being a “pet stooge” of the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation, and as being privately condoned by that body despite his unscrupulous methods and extremist excesses. He has become bad publicity for the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation. “He creates bogus e-mail addresses and names to make false submissions to the Sai Petition, which he also freely admits on his website, and he is guilty of counterfeiting, as has been shown by Basava Premanand.… he posts photos of critics of Sathya Sai Baba with distorted faces and added bodies of a pornographic kind.” See “The Sathya Sai Organization's undercover stooge, Moreno” at http://home.no.net/abacusa/T/stooge.htm.

[Moreno has denied accusations, and has produced various blogs attacking ex-devotees.]
Critical observers do not take Moreno seriously, only in the context of what is discernibly occurring behind the cult facade. The last item “Undercover Stooge” significantly states that Moreno “is clearly in league with Goldstein and other leading US Sai Organisation members and supporters. Pretending to be an ‘independent researcher,’ the Sai Organisation’s pet stooge does their street-fighting for them, with which they cannot afford to dirty their reputation further (since Sathya Sai Baba has ordered them not to answer any allegations whatever).”

One of the useful internet documents available is the lengthy list of prominent ex-devotees of Sathya Sai Baba, including key leaders and long-time workers in the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation. That informative document ends with the statement:

“The main cause for most defections are the sexual molestations, including oiling of genitalia and even widely alleged homosexual seduction and even oral and other sex by Sathya Sai Baba, plus his uninvestigated involvement in the police executions of four of his devotees in 1993 (Murders in Sai Baba’s Bedroom), and not least his many documented fraudulent ‘materialisations,’ broken promises, and misuse of funds. The facts concerning these are documented in the 1 hour BBC documentary on Sathya Sai Baba – The Secret Swami – sent worldwide in 2004 and available on order from the BBC.” See http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/EX-OFFICE BEARERS.htm.

British investigators have discovered that Moreno has extensive materials on the internet, all of which are viewed with aversion by informed parties throughout the world. Kevin Shepherd received a detailed letter from Robert Priddy dated 05/01/07, which included the following:

“The writings of Moreno are a hodge-podge of ad hominem attacks, defamations, faulty arguments, contrived diversions and not least outright lies. Goldstein and the Organisation have to follow the orders of Sathya Sai Baba, which are not to engage with critics in any way, though the second-in-command, Dr. G. Venkataraman (after six years of silence from all Sathya Sai Baba officials) did write a long article to refute the allegations last summer (and we have refuted Venkataraman most thoroughly on ExBaba.com). So Moreno is evidently their stooge, as has also been pointed out on various websites. Moreno uses dirty tricks, like posting names of his opponents on porno sites, then publicising it. Someone has posted my website URL on a porno site (at some expense).”

[The porno site issue is ongoing. Moreno has denied the accusation of Priddy, and has attributed the problem denoted to Priddy’s own wish to advertise his anti-Sai website. Many onlookers do not believe this counter-allegation. Some critics allow that it may have been one of Moreno’s close associates who instigated the porno site problem. Moreno has also objected to the psychological portrayal of himself on the webpage of Martin Alan Kazlev at http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Joe_Moreno.html. Kazlev there refers to Moreno’s “strongly puritanical personality.” Kazlev was a former believer in Moreno’s website, and has since become the subject of an attack blog by Moreno at http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com/. Such blogs are very controversial, and have aroused strong critical comment. Moreno’s output on the internet has gained the tag of “Sathya Sai fundamentalism” in some sectors. He has also produced an attack blog on Robert Priddy.]

There is no actual proof for the theory that Moreno is paid by backers. It is not actually necessary to believe in that possibility, the main point being that he is effectively the front line of attack (and defence) for the American branch of the Sathya Sai movement. Moreno’s extremist accusations are transparent to any careful analysis. See Note Three below.

Some describe Gerald Moreno as an extremist devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. One suggestion is that he was recruited by Robert M. Baskin, the lead lawyer for the American devotees. Some ex-devotees believe that Moreno is financed by the American branch to libel critics as a full-time career (Moreno is said to have no other employment). This theory lacks proof. The ultimate blame for his obsessions is said to lie with the bastions of the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation in the USA who permit (or encourage) his extremist tactics.

The Sathya Sai Baba Organisation has been asked to deny that Moreno is acting on their behalf, but they have not done so. Their emails have been interpreted as definitive proof that they endorse Moreno’s notorious website. It has been strongly deduced that Moreno was fed with materials from the lawyer devotees in his contact, after he learnt about Sathya Sai Baba from Robert Baskin, the lawyer who was a Sathya Sai Baba evangelist in Western USA. (“Gerald ‘Joe’ Moreno on Wikipedia,” p. 10.)

Also implicated in the role of Moreno as the internet “hit man” is the current Sathya Sai Baba Organisation world leader, namely the International Chairman Dr. M. Goldstein. The attitude of this leading official in the BBC documentary The Secret Swami earned him the designation of “doctor from hell.” He has continually screened out all the contrary evidence to the glossed role of Sathya Sai Baba as an incontrovertible spiritual luminary. Goldstein is stated to have returned unopened the complaint mail from former representatives of the American branch. A tactic of evasion thus attends Goldstein’s acceptance of the guru’s doubtful claim to purity (Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, p. 298). Reports about sexual abuse from ex-devotees are taboo in the evasive milieu, which is supported by wealthy icons of the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation. One of those icons (Isaac Tigrett) has even expressed the view that if Sathya Sai Baba were to commit murder, this would make no difference to his (the devotee’s) view. This same devotee believes that the allegations of sexual abuse are true (ibid.), his standpoint thus constituting an unacceptable commitment to rational observers.

The milieu under discussion is thus dangerously permissive. In India, the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation is strongly associated with terrorist bullies well known to the Indian Rationalists, whose leader (Basava Premanand) has survived four murder attempts believed to have been instigated by the “miracle” guru. (Unfortunately, other attempted murders were successful, according to internet reports.) Such details have been mentioned by the BBC, another source evaded by the cult propaganda (Investigating, pp. 287, 291 note 24, 297). That propaganda has been perpetuated due to the lethargy of the Indian government, which has been influenced by devotional biases. Such details have to be taken into consideration by any serious analyst.

An early testimony to the problems discussed here appeared in 1999 in an Australian magazine. The editor stated: “A growing number of boys and young men are coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment, sexual abuse and rape.… one finds many more accounts of faked miracles, suspicious deaths, massive financial fraud, weapons and explosives being found in the ashram, an assassination attempt, and yet more cases of paedophilia and homosexual abuse.… I ended up speaking to many victims, parents of victims, former Sathya Sai Baba centre leaders, and some respected figureheads from the movement. All confirmed the same pattern of abuse and sexual misconduct.… The effects of this misconduct has caused unestimateable damage within many families, including suicides. I only investigated the allegations of sexual misconduct. I notice there are also many who claim the miracles (of Sathya Sai Baba) are faked, there are many allegations of financial fraud, and there are many dead people who were supposedly ‘healed’ by Sathya Sai Baba.” (Report of Duncan M. Roads in Nexus Magazine, Aug–Sept. 1999, available at http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/SaiBabaExposed.html.)

One of the ex-devotee accounts used by Roads was that of Terry Gallagher, a former official in the Australian branch of the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation. In 1993 Gallagher visited the Puttaparthi ashram of Sathya Sai Baba, shortly after the notorious murder of four college students in the living quarters of the guru. “The purpose of this visit was to find the reason why former students of Sathya Sai’s college would want to kill him, particularly when they had been given a free education. The eyewitness accounts were horrific. After bursting into the mandir, four students found themselves trapped upstairs where Sathya Sai Baba was staying. Each was interrogated by the police, then one at a time they were executed. The stench of death was everywhere. I made further enquiries about Sathya Sai Baba having sexual relations with college boys and male students – some of these as young as seven years of age – and whether this was the reason for former students wanting to kill him. I was told, to my horror, that this (sexual molestation) was an acceptable Indian practice! I felt sick, and just wanted to take my family and leave the ashram and India as quickly as possible. Before we did, we were all called for an interview with Sathya Sai Baba, and we told him what we had experienced and been told. Sathya Sai Baba made no comment on our accusations and was only anxious to know who had told us these details.… Sathya Sai Baba was tense and agitated, and his body language told us all that what we had found out about him was the truth” (ibid.).

Gallagher had earlier gained confirmation of the sexual molestations from college students and long-term devotees living at the ashram. He had also detected the ruse of Sathya Sai Baba in “materialising” rings and other objects, which the defector described as “all being produced by sleight of hand and deception” (ibid.). An early report of sexual molestation had appeared in the 1970s, in the book Lord of the Air by the young American ex-devotee Tal Brooke, who described sexual abuses by Sathya Sai Baba. That account was widely ignored by devotees, and was banned, but is now seen to be valid by other sectors.

The allegations of Tal Brooke (which included reports of his friends) have since been accompanied by many other testimonies to sexual molestation by Sathya Sai Baba. There are now about thirty named testimonies in this respect, though many more of an anonymous nature, and an even larger number who are referred to by a wide range of informants. Many of the named testimonies have been written down by the abused, and the data is impossible to ignore by any diligent analyst. A well known testimony is that of Conny Larsson from Sweden, who has campaigned on tv against Sathya Sai. Two of Larsson’s acquaintances committed suicide in the tragic train of events relating to the abuser. Two other salient testimonies come from Alaya Rahm and Mark Roche, both of them Americans who were featured in the BBC documentary The Secret Swami. A report by Dr. Naresh Bhatia on the anal rape of a young Indian boy has caused strong reactions. The American devotee David Juliano wrote that he was abused by Sathya Sai in 1974, further indication of the lengthy time span involved. Keith Ord was a British informant whose friend committed suicide like other victims. The differing nationalities of the abused are striking. These vary from Hans de Kraker of Holland and Marc St-Andre of Canada to the Iranian Afshin Khorramshahgol and the Indian Meenakshi Srikanth (who testified that many Indian college students were sexually abused by the guru). Then there is John Purnell of Australia and Iqbal Raaid of Pakistan. Many other informants have not dared to give their names for the basic reason of fear. Yet G S M Prasad boldly posted a list of over 150 names of college student sex abuse victims on the internet. Another bold case was Jens Sethi of Germany, who reported to the Hamburg police and published his account in a newspaper. The well known commentator Basava Premanand received the names of various Indian college students abused by the guru, and the British ex-devotee David Bailey reported that numerous Indian college students had told him they were sexually molested. This list is by no means exhaustive, but merely indicative of the serious problem attested.

It appears that, despite a substantial number of victims amongst Western males, the major target has been Indian boys in the Sathya Sai colleges. These unfortunates are said to be generally terrified to speak out because of the blind and dogmatic devotionalism exhibited by their parents. This devotionalism is the screening factor that blocks due charges being made against the guru in India.

One of the most arresting testimonies has only recently been duly evaluated. Ullrich Zimmermann (a German now living in America) has become noted for three lengthy online video interviews (at the US portal blip.tv.com) in which he describes in detail his relationship with Sathya Sai Baba. Zimmermann is now another ex-devotee, and he narrates in rather explicit terms how Sathya Sai Baba imposed oral sex upon him in the guru’s interview room. ExBaba.com describes these interviews in terms of delivering “a major blow to any wishful doubts entertained by the faithful that Sathya Sai Baba practices sex on male devotees.” Robert Priddy has given a summary with transcripts at http://home.chello.no/~reirob/Z/. A more lengthy analysis by Priddy is at http://home.chello.no/~reirob/Z/saibabasexual.htm. The main Zimmermann video interview is at http://blip.tv/file/127606, with a backup available at http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ullrichzimmermann/zimmermann2.wmv.

Even the loyalist Gerald Moreno can be described as having recognised the abuse. For several years on his own website, Moreno maintained his belief that Sathya Sai Baba was a sexual abuser. Yet in contradiction, Moreno defended the guru in so many ways. This anomaly is well known in the ex-devotee annals. See www.saibabaexpose.com/JoeFAQ.htm. Moreno dropped his allegation of sexual abuse when Alaya Rahm (a major testifier to abuse) had to desist from his litigation in 2006 due to the paradoxical legal excuse prevailing that there was no registered Sathya Sai Baba Organisation in the USA. Some analysts of devotee/supporter thinking have deduced that Moreno’s claim to be an independent observer loses credibility in the light of such details as his admission on his own website that he has himself been “oiled” by Sathya Sai Baba “on the lower stomach” during his sole interview with the guru. The ritual of oiling has frequently applied to the genital area, with unconvincing explanations being proffered by the guru and devotees. This ritual is notorious amongst ex-devotees as a significator of the guru’s sexual interest, which can easily develop into molestation.

Ullrich Zimmermann found that the oiling ritual led quickly into oral sex, with himself as the party assisting the guru’s apparent ejaculation. He afterwards talked to other people living at the Puttaparthi ashram and who confirmed that such events regularly occurred. Yet a commentary on Zimmermann’s testimony stresses that the BBC documentary The Secret Swami features Dr. M. Goldstein denying that such events had ever happened. Goldstein is International Chairman of the Sathya Sai Organisation. Yet Zimmermann and others have said that the large scale homosexual activities of the guru are well known to many ashram residents. The commentary also states that the leading American devotees have known of the allegations about abuse since the early 1980s when (the devotee) Dr. Jack Hislop sent infamous circular letters to them which attempted to cover up one problem. The commentary laments that Sathya Sai Baba can only be charged in India, where he has virtual control of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Supreme Court of India due to presiding devotees, a contingent who include leading politicians. American ex-devotees found that the Sathya Sai Organisation could not be sued in their own country, that body not being registered as an organisation in America and there using a bookshop as a front for activities. See Priddy, “Ex-Sai Devotee Speaks Out Convincingly About Sai Baba Sex” on ExBaba.com.

In a more general context, ex-devotees have drawn attention to a major report recently published by the Indian Government about child abuse in India. Using a broad and large sampling, the indications are that just over half of the children investigated have been sexually abused. This rather shocking report is regarded as an extending background supporting the credibility of the Sathya Sai College sex abuses which have been strongly alleged as mentioned above. See further http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/english.html (for a link in news).

 

Part Three: Wikipedia, the rival Citizendium, and the Wikipedia ban on Gerald (Joe) Moreno

We return to the question of what comprises a “neutral point of view” in realistic terms. Does that phrase represent an adequate encapsulation of the standards required in presenting data on public media? There are some analysts who answer in the negative.

Many topics found in Wikipedia are said by critics to be the province of suspect contributors who abound in contemporary society. It is sometimes stated that malicious and unruly editing on Wikipedia is often corrected rapidly by members of the community. Yet distortions can easily pass unchecked. The “edit wars” that can arise in Wikipedia entries are notorious, and some arguments are not reconcilable. The Wikipedia project was launched in 2001, but the two co-founders no longer agree, and one of them is working on a “rival project” known as Citizendium, in an attempt to eliminate the problems encountered. Larry Sanger left Wikipedia after the first year. He says that by the summer of 2001, the new online encyclopaedia was being overrun by “trolls” and “anarchist types.” Sanger proposed a stronger role for expert editors, and his outlook is now associated with academic primacy. Whereas Jimmy Wales is said to take a less interventionist stance. According to Wales, disagreements should be resolved “with strong support for individual rights, and respect for reason.” Yet reason is not always in evidence, a fact which could validate the rival argument. The rivalry of Sanger and Wales has been described as a variant form of “edit war.” Sanger complains that his own involvement in the Wikipedia project disappeared on the Wikimedia Foundation records in 2004, when Wales began to be presented as the sole founder of the project. See “Wikipedia stand-off in the search for online truth,” Financial Times Magazine, November 11/12, 2006, pp. 24–28.

Wikipedia files harbour many pseudonymous entities, frequently sporting bizarre names which have aroused the accusation that any communicator could too easily find himself (or herself) arguing with a maniac from almost any cult or underground organisation. The anonymity of Wikipedia contributers compares unfavourably in some eyes with the prospects of Citizendium, where contributers are identified and deference is given to editorial expertise. Yet does this necessarily guarantee a neutral point of view? Not inevitably, but there are less hazards, one could conclude.

Kevin Shepherd’s version of “individual rights and respect for reason” has opted for a British attempt at citizen communication which is critical of factors such as media drawbacks. The BBC television heritage, though capable of producing documentaries like The Secret Swami, is now contaminated by four letter words mediated and boosted by the Dirty Speech Movement originating in 60s hippy America. Some alternative trends in Britain remain suspicious even when glamorised by UN patronage. A neutral point of view is contradicted by any trend in which abuses are concealed, glossed, or ignored. This deficit can occur at charity status level, and with large donations in train.

Wikipedia neutrality belatedly contradicted Gerald Moreno in March 2007 when he was banned indefinitely after transgressing against one of the arbitrators who had warned him. The official report relates that he was voted against unanimously by the six arbitrators in the case. See the Wiki file “Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2” where restricted editing privileges are detailed. Two of his colleagues (Lisa de Witt and Simon Brace) were also banned. This event comprises a notable setback for the American cause of Sathya Sai Baba. Some uninformed computer users are known to have gained the misleading impression from Moreno’s “cordon” argument in Wikipedia that he was an academic scholar whose pronouncement was authoritative. This fact underlines the drawbacks possible in some Wikipedia “neutral” files. Moreno was actually arguing from the angle of a cult supporter attempting to stifle opposing sources in both printed literature and internet format. See also http://www.saibabaexpose.com/MorenoNoMore.htm.

The Wikipedia arbitrators also banned a fourth contributor in the Sathya Sai issue. This was Andries Krugers Dagneaux, who was in a different category to the other three, being a defender of the Sathya Sai Baba Exposé who had attempted to counter Moreno repeatedly. Dagneaux had the repute of being a capable editor, and one arbitrator defended him strongly. It is said that the reason for banning Dagneaux boiled down to a precaution which made the action of the arbitrators appear as being even-handed. Shepherd and others feel disconcerted by this particular aspect of arbitration procedure. It was Dagneaux who had originally established the Sathya Sai Baba entry in Wikipedia on the basis of both pro- and contra- views being represented. The Sathya Sai partisans had violated this consideration.

There are rumours that some Wikipedia editors and arbitrators are concerned about the activities of cults, but are uncertain as to what procedures to adopt on a general basis. Some critics say that it is irrational and irresponsible to be neutral towards damaging cult manifestations. It is not so much neutrality, but assessment of social repercussions, which is a necessary criterion, as with the drugs issue (and some Wikipedia entries on drugs are not beyond criticism).

In 2006, Kevin Shepherd was approached by an academic who wished to compose an entry about him for Wikipedia. Shepherd declined, indicating his strong reservations about the Wikipedia format. He afterwards indicated that he would prefer to be entered in the new Citizendium project of Larry Sanger, the rival which has gained strong interest from academic sectors. Shepherd is said to have been impressed by Sanger’s approach. However, since hearing of the Wikipedia arbitration feat of March 2007, Shepherd has slightly modified his angle on Wikipedia and says that he will await developments in future policy. He remains critical, and maintains that “neutrality” should be enhanced by such considerations as social welfare priorities. He also says that simplistic neutrality refrains can merely amount to relativism in public education, a trend in which extremist points of view confuse and mislead subscribers.

Shepherd has illustrated this contention by pointing to the Wikipedia entry on Holotropic Breathwork, the commercial therapy of Dr. Stanislav Grof (b. 1931). That entry read like a therapy advert until countered by a critical extension. Holotropic Breathwork (HB) is a trademark therapy of officially unverified efficacy, and is known to have created negative symptoms in some clients. That alternative therapy is totally dependent upon the books of Grof for guidelines, and those books have very controversial components. The HB advocates reacted acutely to published criticisms, which included one of Shepherd’s own books, seeking to suppress these and denying their relevance. They even invoked Moreno’s stigma in Wikipedia, believing that this represented authority, though subsequently relinquishing their attitude on this point. The dogmatic situation resulted in a protracted and laborious talk page extension featuring an academic critical communicator who had to exercise a marked degree of patience in conveying elementary considerations to the HB advocates, who remained very resistant on most points. The opposition was such that the dialogue became very confusing in places, and Kevin Shepherd subsequently stated that some misrepresentations had occurred. See also Shepherd’s article On Holotropic Breathwork and the MAPS strategy, appearing on this website.

 

Part Four: FAIR queries the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, and Prof. Dvorkin repudiates Prof. Barker’s INFORM policy

Some analysts have concluded that the Wikipedia action over the Sathya Sai Baba “cordon issue” reveals a perception that there is a gulf between fantasy and fact, between dogma and research, between propaganda and real life events. Yet propaganda did seemingly triumph in Britain, creating strong cause for alarm in educated circles. This drama was unfolding even while the Wikipedia issue was gaining momentum.

The Guardian newspaper reported on gifts of medical aid by devotees to villages surrounding the Puttaparthi ashram of Sathya Sai Baba (P. Lewis, “The Indian living god, the paedophilia claims and the Duke of Edinburgh awards,” The Guardian, Nov. 4th 2006, p. 3). Such dispensations are indeed made under the auspices of Sathya Sai, though ex-devotees point out that devotees do the dispensing and provide the funds. The guru himself has for many years lived a rather relaxed lifestyle of daily darshans or audiences, from which he selects candidates for his private audience room. He has also presided over elaborate fundraising and donation procedures that became notorious amongst disaffected admirers like Dr. Marianne Warren.

As a recent source has stated: “The vast majority of followers hardly ever see Sathya Sai Baba, as he is in daily life out of sight of the crowds, so their experiences are very often based on hearsay, interpretations of their own experiences according to these powerful and fantastic stories, desires to be accepted, and above all strong emotional, psychic, and meditation ‘projection’ onto the guru.” (See Priddy, “Ullrich Zimmermann’s Three Interviews on (Sathya) Sai Baba,” this being the longer analysis of the video interviews cited above.)

The Guardian report accurately stated that Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged following the allegations of sexual misconduct (a dire situation caused by the uncritical support for the guru in India, where socially prominent devotees staunchly uphold his claims to divine status). The US State Department has been more sober than Indian politicians, issuing a travel warning after reports of “inappropriate sexual behaviour by a prominent local religious leader.” That statement has been confirmed by officials as a reference to Sathya Sai Baba (The Guardian, art. cit., p. 3 col. 1).

The purpose of The Guardian article was to investigate a controversial addition to the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme. The Sathya Sai Baba Organisation had recently infiltrated the Award Scheme, to the perplexity of some British observers. An abridged version of The Guardian report appeared in the journal of the British cult-monitoring and victim support organisation known as FAIR (associated with the versatile counterparts of ICSA in Florida and FECRIS in Europe). The Guardian informed that Sathya Sai Baba had issued a command for about 200 youths (of Sai Youth UK) to visit him in India on his eightieth birthday in November 2006. This was interpreted by devotees as a “divine commandment” and the youths were scheduled to fly to India that month. The event was invested with humanitarian significance, a precedent having occurred two years before when group interviews were gained with the guru after the distribution of medical aid in nearby villages. This was the basis for involvement in the Award Scheme, which somehow ignored known hazards associated with Puttaparthi. The November expedition met with due responses of alarm in more informed quarters than the Award Scheme. The chairman of FAIR, Tom Sackville (the former Home Office minister), commented to the press in November: “It is appallingly naïve for the Award Scheme to involve young people and the royal family with an organisation whose leader is accused of paedophilia. Parents who plan to send their children on this month’s pilgrimage should be aware of the danger their children are being exposed to” (FAIR News, Dec. 2006, p. 9).

A representative of the Award Scheme stated that award credit had been given to Sai Youth UK (a division of the Sathya Sai Organisation) for the distributions to the poor. He evaded requests to terminate the arrangement, expressing a misconception about what was at issue. The Award Scheme representative stated that “we make no judgment about their religion” (ibid.). The issue concerned has no relation to judging a religion. Paedophilia and related molestation is not an index to Hinduism, whose celibate code shuns aberrations. Sathya Sai Baba is nominally a swami representing that code. The inability of the Award Scheme to assess the situation is memorable, and a testimony to an ineptitude requiring urgent correction.

Conservative MP (and broadcaster) Michael Gove told The Guardian that he would write to the Award Scheme requesting a stricter monitoring of the organisations they work with. Gove further stated that: “As a society, we need a more determined effort to identify and expose those religious cults and extremists that pose a direct threat to people, so that they (the extremists) do not enjoy patronage that should be directed elsewhere” (ibid.).

The Guardian also reported on the response from the private secretary to Prince Philip, namely Brigadier Sir Miles Hunt-Davis. His letter expressed the desire to get the matter sorted out, and stated that trustees of the Award Scheme would be seeking legal advice before deciding how to proceed. The element of anticipated delay was not encouraging for public interests. The newspaper coverage informed that Prince Philip had given a private audience to an official of Sai Youth UK in 2005, leading to a certificate for a “valuable contribution” to the awards. That certificate was conferred upon the same official at a Buckingham Palace garden party in July 2006. This reckless development is viewed by critics as a glaring flaw in royal liaisons and recreation events. That conclusion is supported by the extent of information publicly available about drawbacks in the Sathya Sai Baba Organisation

The same Sai Youth UK coordinator who had attended the Buckingham Palace garden party (and who had met Prince Philip at St. James’s Palace), was asked by The Guardian to give clarification. This official of the Sathya Sai Organisation said that the sex abuse claims were “totally unfounded,” which is a standard devotional response. The same official posted a glorifying report of his role at the garden party on a Sathya Sai website, to the extent that the Award Scheme defendant abovequoted had to intervene by requesting removal of the misleading item. The Guardian reproduced the devotional account of the garden party as follows: “I was the last speaker called up, and suddenly a confidence, a joy, engulfed my being. I attributed everything to our founder Bhagavan Shri Sathya Sai Baba. As I spoke I watched the sea of faces, they were hanging from my every word and there was a look of excitement on their faces as if to say ‘why have we not heard of this organisation before?’” (The Guardian, art. cit., p. 3 col. 2).

If one reads other accounts like that of Ullrich Zimmermann, one can be very disconcerted that Sathya Sai Baba has a habit of offering his sexual organ for intimate attention in private interviews with selected candidates for the honours unknown in the outer circle.

The dichotomy between the “allegation” reports and partisan sources dismissing these is so marked as to require due evaluation. The dissident versus partisan issue is perhaps rarely so strongly defined as in this field of controversial guru studies. Critical observers have recently compared the lax attitude of the Award Scheme with the loose policy of the Labour government in respect of cultic and “new age” manifestations. Is there any connection? There is certainly a parallel in terms of general features. Tony Blair is strongly associated with INFORM, a body noted for pronouncements on “new religious movements.” Blair renewed the financial support at Westminster for INFORM, a consideration which had been terminated by John Major’s Conservative government in 1993. Blair is said to hold the director of INFORM in high regard, that director being a Professor of Sociology. Tony Blair is on record as having prudently stated in a letter to another MP that he would not meet Sathya Sai Baba (Shepherd, Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, p. 286), but this detail does not actually determine ideological influences upon the overall Labour position with respect to “new religious movements.” The Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme is thought to have been reflecting the casual attitude to incongruities which has been encouraged by INFORM in bureaucratic circles.

A significant conference held by FAIR at London in October 2006 has been viewed as a step forward in the necessary forum about cults and the damage these do in society. A memorable ingredient of this international conference was a talk given by Professor Alexander Dvorkin, the Russian anti-cult campaigner, who strongly criticised the policy of INFORM, a body which is the principal advisor on cults to the British government. The basic accusation here is that INFORM has exercised a sedative effect upon academic attitudes and government policy. The director of INFORM, Professor Eileen Barker, was present amongst the audience, and defended her position (FAIR News, Dec. 2006, pp. 1–2, 17). The allegations of impaired effectiveness and flawed methodology have “raised important issues about the extent to which the British government has been improperly advised and influenced by cults” (ibid., p. 2).

One complaint of Professor Dvorkin was that INFORM has relegated the reports of dissidents about cult activities, instead favouring partisan versions. Dvorkin depicts this as an elitist attitude which claims that only sociologists of religion know the truth in these matters. He urged that this attitude had led to government grants and “privileged field studies” which benefited the cults instead of exposing them. Prof. Dvorkin accused INFORM of holding the view that non-sociologists reporting on cult activities had vested interests or distorted views. Prof. Barker’s depiction of the “new religious movements” closely reflects the preferred versions of the latter, i.e., the cults. This matter is extremely grave, and has aroused due reflection. The air of professional elitism is now associated with the response in some quarters to recent circulars that were sent out by Kevin Shepherd, and which related to dissident and critical reports of suspect organisations. Professor Barker was one of the many academics included in the CC. lists of Shepherd’s Letter of Complaint to David Lorimer. Like certain other academics, she failed to respond in any way. Professor Barker is also affiliated to the Alister Hardy Trust (or Society), who were involved in the data supplied by Shepherd. Most other representatives of that organisation (committed to religious studies) also failed to respond. One conclusion is that the presumed scientific and ethical stance of the Alister Hardy Trust has been contradicted by their aggregate indifference to current events and pertinent issues.

In contrast to the barriers encountered in academic sociology and some related channels, many British politicians replied to the Shepherd circulars of 2006, some even sending personal messages of sympathy and acknowledgement (including David Cameron). In addition, some Christian notaries such as the Archbishop of York also gave due acknowledgement, while a leading Muslim scholar living in the West (Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr) responded in a clarificatory manner. Other eminent entities and Offices also responded, some in confidence.

A concern has existed in FAIR about a withdrawal of funding from the Home Office Unit that was commenced in order to gather information about “new religious movements.” Such a Unit is desperately needed, and should be a major project, not a minor one prone to expiry. The ignorance of basic matters amongst many government officials in Britain is alarming, and the reasons are easy to discern in the truncated form of data relayed via INFORM. There is a growing scepticism of the official sociology of religion associated with INFORM. It has been alleged that some scholars of religion have effectively been acting as apologists for cults and suspect organisations, losing sight of the public wellbeing at stake by their choice of materials. The obscurantism at work in the current sociology of religion frequently fails to penetrate surface appearances and propaganda.

The current sociology of religion is inadequate for public needs, being far too lenient and contradictory with regard to “new spirituality.” That deceptive phrase is now a preferred tag widely used by partisans of controversial trends and entrepreneurial activities. The phenomenon denoted thrives upon the credulity of “new age” supporters, and is assisted by flawed media found in many bookshops and internet features. Many suspect organisations and cults have gained a niche in Wikipedia files, and the current sociology of religion is a useless resort for correction.

The definition of cultism has varied. Kevin Shepherd has reflected as follows:

“The word cult has invited critical reactions when used too loosely and in a manner implying religious bias on the part of the accuser. The word sect is sometimes used as an equivalent in a less pointed register, though some writers use that word in a neutral manner merely to denote religious groupings. Some Christians have used the word cult in a blanket sense, which is not convincing. Religious fundamentalism is only one of the problems in this field. (One of the ten most wanted fugitives on the FBI list has been the leader of a fundamentalist Mormon sect notorious for polygamy, himself having by repute at least seventy wives). In America, the ‘cult scene’ is very diverse. In Britain, many small ‘new age’ groupings of doubtful efficacy are not necessarily cults, but may suffer from a misplaced enthusiasm that so often eschews facts and realities. Flaws can magnify in a very short period. Cues are frequently taken from commercial literature and popular ‘workshop’ practices on a totally uncritical basis. Some larger groupings can exhibit cult-like characteristics without being generally recognised as a cult. These can be described as suspect or erring bodies whose example is unpredictable in terms of social consequences, which may prove adverse to a strong degree. All these presumably ‘spiritual’ groupings require appropriate education, but they are so frequently averse to this, preferring fantasies disseminated by the Mind, Body, Spirit trend now dubbed ‘new spirituality’ by distorting media. Sociologists did not duly clarify the train of events in occurrence since the 60s (and earlier), and improvised the politically correct phrase of ‘new religious movements’ to describe what were elsewhere called cults (though other labels were also used). Yet some analysts have considered this improvisation a cumbrous designation that is not adequately descriptive. For instance, some doubtful organisations are not religious movements at all. The pejorative term of ‘cult’ does become valid when assessing large organisations who acquire substantial funds and who are consistently reported for misconduct. We can refer to the Rajneesh cult and the Sathya Sai Baba cult, for instance. A cult will resort to extremes, which may include forms of terrorism, manipulation of funds, sexual misconduct, and elaborate evasionism which can even extend to the continued denigration and libel of critics possessing a valid angle based on strong data. In such cases, the cult will prove what it actually is to those familiar with relevant materials.”

 

NOTES

Note One. On Robert Priddy. All the academic writings of Priddy listed in Wikipedia were recognised as publications by the University of Oslo (Oslo Institute for Social Research) at either the Institute of Philosophy or the Committee for Examen Philosophicum. His major contribution was Communication and Understanding: textbook in semantical and logical analysis and the philosophy of science (Oslo University 1982, new edns 1983, 1985). This work was used by Priddy to set exams for students over many years. In the 1980s he and his wife became leaders of the Sathya Sai Organisation in Norway. Like many other devotees, Priddy was misled by the propaganda encouraged at the Puttaparthi ashram in Andhra Pradesh. The benign teaching of Love All Serve All transpired to be deceptive. Yet the Sathya Sai Colleges and distributions to the poor at first seemed very impressive. Under such influences, Priddy wrote his celebration of Sathya Sai Baba that was published at Bangalore in 1994 as The Source of Dream, and which the Puttaparthi ashram was keen to sell. That book was taken over by Weiser in 1998 under the new title of Source of the Dream. Priddy afterwards negated his partisan writings with his internet warnings, notably End of the Dream and World-Wide Exposure of Sexual Abuse and Sathya Sai Baba. These articles were the major subject of Appendix Three in Kevin Shepherd’s Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (2005). The current websites of Robert Priddy are:

http://home.no.net/anir/Sai

http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk

http://home.chello.no/~reirob/

Priddy also has a blog at http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/

His homepage is http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/

 

Note Two. On Basava Premanand. Wikipedia has some relevant data on this major Indian critic of Sathya Sai Baba, and who has appeared in two British television documentaries entitled Guru Busters and The Secret Swami. Premanand is now seventy-seven years old (in 2007). For over thirty years he has been in opposition to Sathya Sai via such means as his monthly magazine The Indian Skeptic. The date sometimes given for the commencement of this opposition is 1976. Premanand was once an amateur magician, and has close knowledge of the devices used to impress the gullible. He was able to use this knowledge in his campaign to expose the deceits involved in Sathya Sai Baba’s proclaimed miracles, such as conjuring sacred ash and jewellery from thin air. In 1986 Premanand led a courageous march to the Puttaparthi ashram in Andhra accompanied by 500 volunteers, the objective being to protest at the guru’s deceits. Yet he was arrested by the police. That same year Premanand sued Sathya Sai Baba for violation of the Gold Control Act in the purported materialisation of gold objects. The case was dismissed by the Andhra High Court (where the presiding legalist was a devotee of Sathya Sai who upheld the miracle lore). Premanand appealed on the ground that “spiritual power” is not a defence recognised in law. He subsequently founded the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations, which has toured Indian villages in a notable project of educating the public by exposing fraudulent gurus and holy men. He was described by the BBC as India’s leading guru buster, and has “been honoured by the government with its highest award for the promotion of scientific values among the public.” His book Murders in Sai Baba’s Bedroom (2001) is a critical investigation of controversial events in 1993 which are still understated elsewhere and widely evaded among prominent Indian supporters of the guru.

 

Note Three. On Gerald “Joe” Moreno. This American supporter of Sathya Sai Baba uses various pseudonyms such as joe108 and vishvarupa108, though his Wikipedia identity was SSS108. A revealing article on Moreno comes from the ex-devotee M. Alan Kazlev, and can be found at http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Joe_Moreno.html. This article is very significant in that Kazlev was formerly one of those influenced by the output of Moreno. Kazlev refers to Moreno’s sprawling website Saisathyasai, which is notorious amongst ex-devotees. The same contributor also refers to more than half a dozen blogs by Moreno, which are “full of bitter ranting and adolescent mockery.” Moreno is here discussed in the context of his obsession with slandering ex-devotees who have spoken out against the sexual abuses of Sathya Sai. Kazlev was at first a believer in Moreno’s website, apparently so detailed but which was subsequently discerned to be lies by Kazlev when he contacted ex-devotees and heard their side of the argument. He states that Moreno depicts dissidents as purveyors of pornography, as paedophiles, as fundamentalist Christians, as racists, and so forth. These accusations are patently transparent as misconceptions and distortions. Kazlev observes that Moreno “has so far shown himself incapable of accepting even a single fact that goes against his guru, however well-documented it is, and systematically avoids dealing with any of the criticisms of his [Sathya Sai’s] teachings, known public behaviour, untruthfulness, and so on.” Yet paradoxically, Moreno has claimed that he is no longer a devotee, which Kazlev describes as a controversial issue. The impression conveyed by Moreno is that he was a devotee between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, and one who was “oiled” by the guru in a non-sexual context. Kazlev concludes that Moreno is still a follower, and one with an obsessive belief that anyone who accuses Sathya Sai of abuse is a liar. The testifiers to abuse are depicted as liars by Gerald Moreno, and this is the pretext employed to slander the victims and critics. “Very often his defamatory attacks take the form of infantile behaviour, such as creating images meant to mock or humiliate.” Kazlev urgently concludes that the claims of ex-devotees about sexual abuse and betrayal of trust are too numerous to ignore. “There is just too much evidence, from too many sources, to ignore.” The same concerned writer describes how Moreno tried to have his “slander page against Robert Priddy” included in Wikipedia. Fortunately, improved Wikipedia policy enabled a removal of this very biased link. Kazlev also observes that one of Moreno’s colleagues had claimed that ex-devotees were manipulated by the CIA, an error apparently based upon the detail that the father of Tal Brooke (an early testifier to abuse) was employed by the CIA. The facile associations used in such denunciations are no guide to accuracy. Conspiracy theories do not explain away the pressing testimonies to sexual abuse that are now increasingly well known on the internet. Similarly, the slanders about ex-devotees being paedophiles are not in the least convincing to rational investigation of documents like the BBC video entitled The Secret Swami. Sathya Sai Baba emerges strongly in the testimonies as a sexual molester, and an extremist devotee reaction has been to depict the accusers as paedophiles. None of the ex-devotees have been reacting from the angle of fundamentalist Christians, as is rather obvious. The extent of personal suffering in some instances underlines the gravity of the issue at stake. The counter-charge of racism may be discarded as another extremist resort, especially as Indians like Basava Premanand are involved in the exposé. Kazlev cites supporting internet sources such as Sai Baba Exposed by Conny Larsson, a major testifier to abuse who includes a refutation of claims made by Moreno. The latter's blatant misrepresentation of Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy has reflected very badly on the American branch of the Sathya Sai movement, and in Britain has caused a mood of deep reserve that Moreno ever gained license in the files of Wikipedia (whose procedures and regulations are viewed as still being in need of improvement). The situation of abuse testimonies versus denial slanders is now a pressing issue at international level.

 

The extreme difficulties inherent in correcting Wikipedia processes of misinformation are indicated on the professional website of Anthony Judge, who has contributed a very revealing insight as to what can happen with “the emergent values of an ‘open society’ model.” See “Abusive Wikipedia Biographical Editorial Process” at http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/bio/wikibios.php. This item is dated 14/03/2007, and relates how Judge was unable to correct erroneous information inserted into Wikipedia in March 2007. There were other complications arising which offset any element of technical skill. Judge observes that, for instance, “there was no obvious complaints procedure – no ombudsman-type service, no help service.” One conclusion is “that Wikipedia is building up a reservoir of incorrect articles.” Judge ends with the information that “at the time of writing, ‘scandals’ relating to the Wikipedia editorial and arbitration process – notably with respect to biographical entries – were being widely reported in the media.” One protester was only able to get his bio entry corrected through his personal connection to the Wikipedia founder. To this data, one can here add that Kevin R. D. Shepherd recently approached a Wikipedia representative and queried the validity of Gerald Moreno’s relegation of Citizen Initiative in a Wikipedia file dated October 2006 (cited above). Shepherd was told that the Moreno item was a user page, not a Wikipedia article, and that this factor represented problems in deletion or replacement, despite the Wikipedia ban on Moreno that had come into operation in February 2007.

Gerald Moreno (alias SSS108), alias Vishvarupa, etc.) has very recently adapted his disreputable Wikipedia user page on Kevin R. D. Shepherd in a blog that is notorious as a misrepresentation of Robert Priddy. See http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/kevin-shepherd-and-robert-priddy/. In a controversial context, the infamous user page now appears via Google; Wikipedia user pages warn against mirror sites and outdated content. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SSS108/Kevin_Shepherd. This page has been cited above (see Part One). Critics complain that Google should revise their protocol in such areas of misleading documentation, and that Wikipedia is far behind the requisite degree of control over misrepresentation. Moreno’s user page, promoting his masked identity of SSS108, indicates the flawed heritage of assimilation from cult biases which has been a strong component of the popular Wikipedia repertory. Yet Wikipedia has since banned Gerald Moreno, who does not declare that fact in his anonymous blog entry cited above, which bears the underlying imprint of Sathya Sai devotionalism. This same blog is regarded as a virus by anti-paedophile and anti-murder parties, and has replicated itself (along with related blogs) on Google Search listings, adhering to names of opponents, and obstructing the process of investigating discrepancies. In Moreno’s outlook, Sathya Sai Baba must not be criticised, only his critics. Gerald Moreno has tried to maintain anonymity by using various cover names well known to informed observers. Anonymity is no guarantee of accuracy, and no proof of neutrality. Moreno claims to have “exposed” certain ex-devotees who have criticised Sathya Sai Baba, but what he has actually done is to confirm the unreliable perspective for which cult partisanship is internationally noted. That doubtful perspective is widely known to nurture extreme obsessions and acute tunnel vision. The degree of public confusion created by such ex-Wikipedia defaulters is not something for victims to ignore, especially when ex-devotees have received death threats from the “Love All Serve All” movement. In his anonymous blog accessible on Google, Moreno also gives inadequate information about the salient devotee V.K. Narasimhan (d. 2000). The latter remained a devotee of Sathya Sai until his death, though he is known to have entertained extensive doubts. Robert Priddy had a personal contact with Narasimhan, and is the more reliable source. See the detailed Priddy articles at http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/VKN1.htm and VKN2.htm. Moreno unconvincingly argues that because Narasimhan was a staunch devotee, Priddy must be wrong in his reporting.

Gerald Moreno is rumoured to be the front man for Dr. Michael Goldstein, a key American officiant of the international Sathya Sai movement. There is as yet no proof for this belief. Yet it is relevant that Goldstein gained notoriety when he was secretly filmed by the BBC and adopted a threatening attitude towards an interviewer. See http://home.hetnet.nl/~comments_on/_the_secret_swami/SSOChairman.htm. Moreno assumes the name of Equalizer in sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com, a blog which attacks varying critics of the guru who hold rather different viewpoints. Moreno says that some of his opponents have strange beliefs, and this may be true (e.g., UFOs, aliens, devas, Earth spirits). New age beliefs are rife in America and Europe, and have interacted with guru movements since the 60s. Kevin R. D. Shepherd is elsewhere noted to be a strong critic of new age thought and resort to drugs. Moreno does not mention such details, and is evidently unfamiliar with books he dismisses and their author whom he demeans on the basis of having cited Robert Priddy in an appendice to Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (2005). Moreno affirms of Shepherd that “his reference to Robert Priddy’s anti-Sai propaganda is highly suspect, non-credible and obviously poorly researched.” That judgement is evidently coloured by belief in the priority of Sathya Sai Baba. The fact that Gerald Moreno was banned from Wikipedia in 2007 is alone sufficient to justify complaints concerning his biased Wikipedia user page about Kevin Shepherd that is accessible on Google, and thereby giving the impression to unwary readers that a defamatory blog is legitimate news.

Moreno is obsessive about Robert Priddy, whom he depicts in his blog as eulogising drug experiences. Priddy is not a drug advocate, and Moreno’s insidious slander against him has been countered. See http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Moreno_slander_against_Robert_Priddy.htm. This entry mentions the extremist attempt of Moreno to depict Priddy unfavourably on the basis of his taking LSD in 1963 as a university student volunteer in an official investigation project. Moreno’s caricature is not difficult to penetrate. Priddy produced documents describing his LSD experiences, and which he deleted from his website at the end of his devotee phase (deciding against the eulogies). Moreno has reproduced three of those documents without permission and has added inappropriate comments. In The Psychedelic Experience, Priddy says that he did not become addicted and that his disillusionment with LSD led to his conclusion that “all psycho-chemicals of this nature should be avoided.” He stresses instead the “gradual evolution of the psyche by controlled moral and mental discipline.” Another warning is here expressed by Priddy as follows: “The use of bio-chemicals like LSD-25 to alter consciousness is like reaching for ‘plastic grapes.’ They do not allay one’s hunger. They can also create an illusion of knowledge and power, and that can be harmful.”

The Priddy version of LSD is thus very different to that of Grof and other partisans. The postscript to this document reflected some of the widespread beliefs that cannabis was less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, though Priddy duly added “I am in principle against any form of drug use myself now, being convinced that no lasting good can come of it.” Kevin Shepherd adopts a different standpoint on cannabis, and was one of those in strong disagreement when the Labour Party Home Secretary opted to decriminalise that drug to class C status in 2003. This move has been confirmed by events as disastrous, precipitating a massive increase in drug use in Britain. One of the relatively few warnings about the cannabis problem appears in Kevin Shepherd’s book Pointed Observations (2005), pp. 27ff., which utilised findings of competent psychiatrists. The cannabis problem has since seeped through to media cognizance in Britain.

A recent official report has stressed that regular cannabis use can more than double the risk of mental illness, and that a single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than forty per cent. Cannabis is also strongly implicated in a series of vicious murders, one victim being stabbed sixty-six times by an addict of cannabis and cocaine. It is now believed that teenage users of cannabis are subject to the risk of permanent brain damage. Schoolteachers have warned about the effects of cannabis use in schools (see Update May 2007 to Letters to OSC Regulator, on this website). The drug is being used by increasingly younger children who do not appear in diluted official statistics. The fact that cannabis is now a stronger drug than formerly is no excuse to ignore the hazards which existed in earlier years. The drugs lobby active in America, and closely associated with Esalen, has for long been misleading the public about the effects of drugs (Shepherd,Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals, 2004, pp. 48ff.). One wing of this lobby is represented by MAPS, the organisation that claims to warn about dangers and benefits of drug use while being in obvious support for the ingestion of a wide range of psychoactive substances. See Grof Therapy and MAPS, on this website, the MDMA issue here being spotlighted by Kevin Shepherd.

In Britain, symptoms of a drug legalisation lobby have been discerned in the establishment. That affluent lobby, largely out of contact with social events, talks lamely about “harm reduction” instead of tackling problems and invoking criminal law. The media has recently emphasised that only last year, the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs declined to promote an upgrading of the cannabis risk on the grounds that the potency of this drug had altered little over the past thirty years. The standard of education in Britain is seriously retarded. Though the Sathya Sai movement is perhaps a minor problem by comparison, nevertheless the same cover-up tendencies are at work amongst cult blog partisans intent upon influencing the US State Department and UNESCO. Moreno claims that his camp has been successful in this endeavour, in which case official incompetence continues. Moreno states in his blog that all (indirect) references to Sathya Sai Baba have been deleted by the State Department from their website, and that UNESCO have removed a press release from theirs. This grave cessation of public warnings should arouse strong questions about official protocol, which can evidently be manipulated by an organisation whose activities have not been duly investigated.

The skeletal version of events by Moreno does not provide due documentation. The US State Department Travel Advisory for India repeatedly warned against Sathya Sai Baba (without naming him) from the year 2000. This warning was superseded in December 2006, apparently because the guru has been confined to a wheelchair for some years and has stopped giving private interviews to foreigners. A more ominous analysis relates to UNESCO, whose Media Advisory dated September 2000 warned about the sexual abuse alleged against Sathya Sai. Subsequently attempts were made to suppress this document, which was deleted from the UNESCO website. BBC enquiries confirmed a collusion between UNESCO and the Sathya Sai Organisation. "The BBC holds over 80 hours of footage of powerful testimony against Sathya Sai Baba containing allegations that depict large scale serial sexual abuse of males from many countries." See Barry Pittard, "Does UNESCO Really Protect the Young", at http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/articles/barryunesco.html. When pressed by the BBC in 2004, UNESCO gave a contradictory statement, saying that: "UNESCO does not regret issuing the media release of September 15th 2000." This discrepancy occurred too late to be included in the BBC documentary The Secret Swami. The UNESCO anomaly has aroused the accusation of failing to honour the UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child. The gravity of this situation has also aroused questions as to other possible mistakes made by the UN bureaucracy. See CIFAL Findhorn, on this website.

LINKS

http://bdsteel.tripod.com

www.exbaba.com

www.fair-cult-concern.co.uk

http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/english.html

http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk

http://home.chello.no/~reirob/

http://home.no.net/abacusa/

http://home.no.net/anir/Sai

http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/

http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Joe_Moreno.html

http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/bio/wikibios.php

http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com

www.saibabaexpose.com

www.saiguru.net

www.saisathyasai.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basava_Premanand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

 

Copyright © 2008 Citizen Initiative. All Rights Reserved.

Guide to contents

The counter of pro-Sai activism – jibe rhetoric – web bulletin boards and attack blogs – dime a dozen Anti-Sai ruffians – BBC dime values – the missing link – Joe Moreno’s website compositions – annotated books versus vehement postings – the bias issue – Dadlani exegesis – the webpage of Kazlev – the reincarnation issue – Ullrich Zimmermann and Ramtha channelling – Sathya Sai Baba channelling – alleged abuse ignored by Indian political elite – the testimony of Conny Larsson – the lawsuit of Alaya Rahm and the Sathya Sai Society of America – how Sathya Sai Baba threatened Alaya Rahm – Diane Payne and Dr. John Hislop – the drug issue – cannabis complexities – the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba seen to be sleight of hand – the devotee V.K. Narasimhan divulged unflattering details – protest at a Wikipedia User page does no