Perhaps someone without emotional affiliation could provide a more objective perspective. It is another point of reference that goes into the hopper and contributes to a collective view.

First, to suggest that Geaves, a life-long devotee, doesn't have any "emotional affiliation" is too funny for words!  Thanks for the laugh.    But, please note, you still haven't answered the question.  What one thing can some so-called "scholar" tell us that we don't already know?  We don't need them to describe the customs or beliefs of the cult.  We already know all that.  So what?  What can they offer?

Look, let's say that we all got into gardening.  Here's an analogy that might fit.  Say instead of ex-premies, we were ex members of Findhorn, that stupid Scottish cult that pretended fairies and what not were helping them grow outrageously large vegetables.  So here we are, a bunch of ex-Findhornies arguing with a bunch of current members.  In that case, I completely see how botanists or other scientists might be able to enrich the discussion by contributing all sorts of real scientific information.  Capiche? 

But with the Maharaji cult, what can they say?  That some people believe this and some that?  Hey, we already know that.  The one exception I make is for historical context because that is the one area that people can develop all sorts of expertise.  It's also one area where Rawat, you know, treated us like mushrooms.

So come on now, answer the question.  What role is there for experts in this analysis?

Don't you think it rather weird that there are all these people who will bend over backwards to praise the hell out of your "friend" but who, for some strange reason, can never, ever criticize him?

Why do you think a person must publically criticize him to prove they are open minded? That is preposterous! For a good friend, you stand by them when their integrity is unfairly called to question. To be swayed to join a lynch mob by stupid arguments such as yours would demonstrate a spineless lack of integrity on one's part. And for you, to attempt to coerce another to join that lynch mob by such arguments demonstrates a corrupt and hollow moral ethos. That's you mate.

Jonx, let's be reasonable.  Premies fall over themselves backwards trying to find new ways to praise the hell out of Rawat.  It's rather embarrassing to read the countless poems that try to best Kabir and Rumi, each premie looking for that ultimate way to sing the Master's praises.  But when, like you, they claim that they see his faults too, and they're asked to say what they are -- silence!

Again I'll ask you another question you haven't answered:  what do you think a cult looks like, Jonx?