'How about the idea that many of the ashram premies were people who lacked the confidence to make it outside, and so seized on the ashram content of what M said, making it their raison d'etre, for fear of not being able to find a raison d'etre anywhere else?'

I think that there is a partial amount of truth in what you are saying here.

In my provincial city, far from the hub in London, a fair number of people actually joined the ashram as a way of refinding their feet after the great drug blitz of the 60s/early 70s. A certain component of this type is quite understandable, when one remembers that the average age of premies at the time was probably 21.

There was a policy at the time that Maharaji had saved a lot of young people from drugs by offering a shelter to 'save' them. This was actually vaunted at the time (they were in 'intensive care').

However, to see things retrospectively as capable outsiders and socially misfit ashramites is IMO far too simplistic.

Having had a successful academic career prior to encountering M, and being somewhat older than the average, my own view at the time was to perceive many premies generally as survivors from the drug culture (and therefore never having started careers in any case). Some of the central leadership were seemingly people of natural talent who had opted for devotion and inevitable ashram membership.

However, after the ashram closure, most ashramites I knew went on to pretty constructive futures. 

I've never really grabbed this thing about ashram living having blighted one's life opportunities, as it never seemed to apply to those I knew (I've never heard one complain).

I think the larger problem maybe arose for US ashram people, as the welfare system there is more restricted than in the UK, and the 'loss' of those years in terms of career making and social contributions has perhaps had longer-lasting repercussions than to those over here.

It's true also that a lot of the basic framework of Maharaji's endeavours was provided by ashram people. However, a lot was provided too by sensible married community premies and ashram avoiders (one remembers a natural friction between the 2 groups).

I would also have to say that IMO spiritual movements  always contain a certain component of people in or outside ashrams who are always going to be underachievers or outsiders to the norm.

When I look at the surviving local premie community, I can't help but see the truth in this, which is why, although I don't usually encounter them in any case, I would probably never talk objectively to them about Maharaji, as it would be like cruelly kicking a stick away from under some of them.