Of course I know that there is a follow up in the manner you describe Joy. Please don't be so factious. 

The type of follow up you mention simply serves to ensure that people are not wavering from the established setting of Prem Rawat being the giver of, or in some way the facilitator through "grace" of the experiences gained through meditation.  As I have stated above, I believe such a setting is false.

No, the follow up I have in mind is to ensure that no harmful psychiatry effects have been caused due to meditation.  In fact I believe that anyone who wants to embark on such a path recommended by Prem Rawat should first ensure that they do not suffer from any cognitive dysfunctions which meditation may well entrench.  I believe that trained therapists, independent of premies, who are trained in cognitive techniques should be employed.  But that is not going to happen is it?

But I wonder why you have chosen to ignore the other points I made in my post Joy? Earlier on today you seem to be making the point that anyone who had seen the "self-effulgent light" would have no doubt at all that God exists and as this was revealed to you by Prem Rawat then, by extension, we should all carry on following Rawat.  I then made the point that even though people have and do experience the stuff you talk about, myself included, that is no proof of anything.  I offered an alternative explanation which you chose to ignore.

T