Andries,

You place these quotes of what the so-called scholars of New Religious Movements have said about Rawat and us.  It's as if you're attempting to provide us with some validation, or proof of what ex-premies have lived. When I read these quotes from books or papers these "scholars" have written, I say to myself:  "So what? Now, I can believe myself and other ex-premies because this guy Kranenborg (or whomever) confirms my life's experiences in a destructive cult?"   Stuff that we've been writing about for all these years???

It makes me laugh, actually because these quotes are so simplistic.  These "scholars" haven't even scratched the surface of what the Rawat cult is about.  They generalize and get credit for being so "scholarly."  Being talked down to by these doctors of religions and sociology.  LOL! 

It is not necessary for me to be validated by anyone who lives in academia, who studies and writes about NRMs.  Even classifying EV as an NRM is quite questionable, seeing that Rawat insists that  it's no religion that he teaches.

I would find very it interesting if someone were to discredit Massimo Introvigne, Eileen Barker and Gordon Melton,  in a scholarly way.  Why?  Because these folks are pretty clueless, IMO.   Introvigne is a quack, and undeserving of anyone's attention.  He's not even a sociologist -- he's a bleeding patent attorney, who, along with Melton, likes to dress up and party as Dracula!!!  (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)