1. Leaders of NRMs are not easily accessible for members, only as a member of the public you can "meet" the Master during his stage performance (asserted by Robert Ellwood, true for both SSB and Rawat)

2. Leaders of NRMs do not make clear claims about themselves but leave it to the members to come to a conclusion. (This is somewhat true for Rawat but not for SSB who makes clear claims about himself), (amended after readings Paddy's comments)

3. Many cults and NRMs practice revisionism with the clearest example Osho/Bhagwan Rajnees. (very true for Elan Vital and somewhat true for SSB)

4. Facts about the founder of the NRM/cult are difficult to get, myths. legends, religious interprations of his life, in contrast are easy. Personally I find this a symptom of dishonesty. Why not clarify things when the leader is still alive? (very true for SSB, somewhat true for Rawat)

5. One of the groups (Aetherius Soctiey) that one of the NRM scholars (Mikael Rothstein) treats has the same mission strategy as Elan Vital i.e. being silent of the founder's (George King's) divinity. Members are fully aware that the divinity of George King may be implausible to prospective members. They wait with telling this until the members has already accepted the group and its official doctrines.

One article was co-authored by a member of the NRM (Bahai) but the book clearly stated so. This confirms once again my opinion that not all NRM scholars are the same and do not show such strong bias as J. Gordon Melton does. (Quite the same for Rawat and somewhat the same for SSB)

Andries (amended after readings Paddy's comments)