Many people hear what they want to hear, no matter what is being said.

Pretty much the standard comeback of the con ("confidence") man. It's true, of course, but it's the unethical manipulation of that human weakness that's the essence of the con.

And why one would choose a con man as a spiritual leader and example, just escapes me. You know, Ward Churchill's big mistake was that he came right out and claimed to be a native American, as opposed to merely implying it. It was a completely unnecessary risk. Rawat was actually much more clever, but he also had a tradition to borrow from. The con wasn't his. It had developed over the period of about 600 to 1,000 years.

I'm afraid the textual/hermeneutic analysis won't work though. You see, he never attempted to correct the people who called him "God in human form," and he readily accepted the donations garnered from that claim as his own. Caught "red-handed" as they say, in one of the classic con games.