First, thanks for your post with Kranenborg's quote.

But I agree with Cynthia. The question really is: Do you (as an outsider) go for your information to those who have first-hand evidence, or to those who have made an academic career out of the cult business?

Unfortunately, many people will only believe the 'experts', those with second-hand evidence. It is a similar attitude to believing what your doctor says over what your own body is telling you; if doctor and your body agree, that is fine, but if your body is telling you one thing, and your doctor another, who do you accept ? I used to accept the doctor; not any more, and not for a long time, in fact.

So if you are a doctor-believer, and you need to hear opinions about Maharaji (or anything in fact) from academics, I think that is a shame. After all, I *am* an academic (PhD), and I am aware how emotionally driven and unsound much academic research is (and my area was 'hard' science).

There were facts about Maharaji, and our time with him, that we (many on this Forum, and contributions on EPO) were witness to. This is first hand evidence.

How would you feel if I did not take anything you say about Sai Baba seriously, but relied solely on 'evidence' from a bunch of academics, who know nothing about Sai Baba except what their particular flavor of cult-thinking allows?

But you have a story to tell, and as a listener to that story, my only task is to judge (as best I can) whether you are a fair witness, speaking the truth.

So I am asking you to read my and others' testimonies about Maharaji. Do you think we are speaking, in broad terms, the truth? If so, then what are the academics going to add ? If you think we are not speaking the truth (we are exaggerating or whatever) then that is that.

Take care