Thanks for your answer Reporter, but I do not understand how you can test sincerity by saying that a person has little changed his habits. He may be consistently insincere or have grown insincere. As I wrote,  I think that sincerity can be tested by the question whether somebody made sacrifices to spread his teachings or for the welfare of his followers when he had more profitable options.

What I meant with honesty is whether there is any deception and propaganda, such as hiding possibly embarassing private behavior from his followers. Does a person who claims to be essential for success in meditation to achieve peace of mind, but in a mysterious way without giving ongoing practical meditation, need alcohol? He does not need to hide this if this is not embarassing.

Also, what I meant with "reliability" is not Rawat's consistency over time, as I thought I had clearly explained, but the truth of Rawat's teachings, based on internal consistency and plausiblity. May be the word validity would have been better. Validity also includes discrepancy between teachings and private behavior because that undermines plausibility of his teachings. such as Rawat's alcoholism and forbidding ashram inhabitants to use alcohol in the past.Validity also includes some admission of mistakes, because it is very unlikely that a person made no mistakes.

I would appreciate it if you or others made a list or framework to assess gurus or charismatic religious leaders. The top down approach is interesting, I think. The framework and the definitions that I provided are work in progress.

The question how to assess gurus is a difficult subject, as David C. Lane wrote, and he made, I think, an excellent checklist.

Andries 

(modified for grammar)