..."thinking you understand more about another person's joy than they do" is pretty much the sum total of your argument--you insist, repeatedly, that you know why we quit M. ("Nasty doubts", or something.) I've never actually said I understand your joy. I expect it falls into one or another standard category of religious rationalisation, but speculation is pointless.

What we can talk about is facts, and the case against M as a person remains overwhelming. He isn't satguru, he isn't even really an inspirational teacher--that's just a label he's appropriated lately. The truth is he's a con man, and this is blindingly obvious.

It isn't arrogance to expect you to face the blindingly obvious. It's the only position any reasonable person can take.

Carry on ranting, if you think it helps.

Neville B