So, the fallacy would be to say that because premies that Paddy knows of seem reasonably happy, that being a premie makes you happy, or at least it doesn't make you unhappy.  True, this would be a group that by definition has stayed around, so they would tend to be happier as premies than those who left, who would tend to be unhappier as premies, which is, as you say, a much larger group.

But there is another possibility as well.  The people who stay premies might be among the most indoctrinated in the fear of what would happen to them if they left, in terms of a dry, horrible, loveless life.  If that's the case, then by contrast, being a premie would tend to make you "happy" because of the contrast with the indoctrinatied imagination of the alternative is so awful.

I really believe that "happiness" can't be seen in isolation, but is in fact a feeling that is relative.  If you believe you have been "saved" that, in and of itself, evokes a feeling that can be described as "happiness" even though there is nothing inherent in the "saving" that makes one feel "happiness."  It's only in light of the alternative that it's there.

That's why Rawat has to introduce the concept of "mind" and the "unpeaceful and confused world" and the rest, for his cult to survive.  It isn't about an "experience" that is inherent, it's a feeling of "happiness" in contrast to the dire picture that Rawat paints about one's condition without it.