SERGUEI BADAEV

SAI DEVOTEES AND ALLEGATIONS

Refuting Deceptive News About Sathya Sai Baba On SaiSathyaSai.com

September 2005 ::: Serguei Badaev ::: A Response

Allegations Concerning SSB And How Devotees Tend To Relate To Them

Serguei Badaev And The Case Of The Pot Calling The Kettle Black
Ref: http://www.saiguru.net/english/articles/new5.htm

Allegations concerning SSB and how his devotees tend to relate to them
by Serguei Badaev
September 2005
badaev57@mtu-net.ru

(1) Since about 2000 a wide range of critical materials about Sathya Sai Baba (SSB) has been accumulated on the Internet (see for example, a review "In the Shadow of Sathya Sai Baba [1], and the personal web sites of Robert Priddy [2] and Brian Steel [3]). A significant portion of those materials are written as research papers, some of them meet academic standards. SSB's critics have discussed a number of topics: false materialisations (which are supported by some video records), uninvestigated murders in SSB's bedroom in 1993, SSB's claims of being a full Divine incarnation (i.e. Purna Avatar), etc. The topic which induces the most acute discussions is SSB's sexual relationships with his young male devotees.

My Response: Click Here to view my comments regarding the "academic" articles written by Brian Steel. Click Here to view my comments regarding the "academic" articles written by Robert Priddy. It is amusing that Serguei believes that articles written by these two individuals would meet "academic standards".

Both Brian Steel and Robert Priddy contradict their own positions so often, they can hardly be considered consistent. I have fully substantied this opinion under the relevant links provided earlier. For example, Brian Steel (BS) has written a voluminous article entitled "The Packaging of Sathya Sai Baba's Telugu Discourses. A Stronger Case". In this article, BS made a strong case that the English versions to Sathya Sai Baba's Telugu discourses have been heavily modified and edited and do not reflect what Baba actually and literally said in Telugu. After making this case (which Serguei happens to agree with), BS then wrote other articles citing these very same heavily modified and edited English discourses (which were not supposed to reflect what Baba actually and literally said in Telugu) and uses them as accurate references to what Baba actually and literally said in Telugu! BS has refused to clarify or explain why he holds on to this contradictory viewpoint. Click Here to view my email correspondence with Brian Steel and see the way he childishly reacts to just criticism.

Robert Priddy is undoubtedly an eloquent writer. However, it is apparent that Priddy's anger and vindictiveness have blinded him to twist and misrepresent the facts. Priddy cannot take a non-contradictory stance regarding Sathya Sai Baba's powers and miracles. Despite Priddy repeatedly accusing Sai Baba of being a fraud magician who cheats on all his materializations, Priddy still has the following posted on his website:

"Some of what I experienced of SSB's extraordinary and positive powers through many years is undeniable, even after the most rigorous skeptical investigations, and I do not regard him as any ordinary human being. I have simply had to realize that his actions in the worldly and human sphere are not infallible and are not always setting a perfect example for others."

Besides this quote, Priddy believes that Sathya Sai Baba "can and does carry out apports", is "psychically sensitive" and has "scientifically-inexplicable psychic powers". Priddy even attibuted a personal healing to Sathya Sai Baba, along with other amazing healings of his cat and mother (Ref. 1). Consequently, Priddy leaves the door open just enough to compromise his (and Serguei's) entire argument and criticism about Sathya Sai Baba's materializations, healings and miracles.

Click Here to view my Witnesses Section that discusses the allegations of sexual abuse against Sathya Sai Baba.

(2) The first important event in SSB exposing process was, probably, publication of Tal Brooke's book "The Avatar of Night" in 1970's. One may believe that Tal Brooke's case is an isolated mishap, an exception to the rule. But the Internet postings, and a much larger number of private communications to former devotees in different parts of the world, show that the stories like Tal Brooke's and even worse ones are, unfortunately, numerous. That refutes one of the arguments of SSB's supporters who often claim that all the criticism comes from a 'handful of disgruntled people' who lacked SSB's attention. But among SSB critics there are people who were very close to him, had a lot of interviews and gifts, and quite often held high positions in the Sathya Sai Organisation (SSO). Nor does it do any credit to those Sai devotees who cast a slur on Brooke, with a false logic that goes: he is an evangelical Christian therefore his testimony counts for nothing. Whereas, the truth is that the allegations come from individuals from a variety of cultural backgrounds, including Hindu and Muslim.

My Response: In 30+ years, not even one person mentioned in Tal Brooke's book Lord of the Air has come forward to corroborate his stories. Not even one person! Brooke is a Fundamentalist Christian who the President and Chairman of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, which is a site that attempts to counter the Occult, the New Age Movement, Sathya Sai Baba, Hinduism and Buddhism (essentially anything not Christian).

What Serguei failed to mention is that the "internet postings" he made mention to are mostly made by anonymous people. Anyone can say anything they want under the guise of anonymity. Even more disturbing are the posts made by Anti-Sai Activists using their real names (or names they are known for using or were discovered as having used). Click Here to view some of Sanjay Dadlani's "internet postings". Click Here to view some of Tony O'Clery's "internet postings". Click Here to view some of Reinier Van Der Sandt's "internet postings". When it comes to Serguei's fellow Anti-Sai Activists, he says absolutely nothing regarding their online behavior, attacks and disgusting behavior.

"Private communications" have no practical value. Since "private communications" are private, anyone can exaggerate or lie about them. For all practical purposes, they are anonymous and can be submitted using pseudonyms. As a matter of fact, the Anti-Sai movement heavily relies on secret and private communications. I have been the recipient to tremendous amounts of "private communications" from people whose identities I have been able to verify. I received information about Anti-Sai Activists (which I was able to verify through postings made on the internet) and information regarding alleged victims and very disturbing facts about them. However, since these communications are "private", I am not at liberty to discuss them. Nevertheless, I am fully aware that these private emails have no practical benefit as long as they are kept private and the people who wrote them choose not to divulge their names.

(3) An essential fact is that the criticism comes mostly from ex-followers of SSB. Though it is clear that a Christian attitude to SSB cannot be but critical of him, there is not much criticism on Christian web sites and SSB is just one among other numerous Indian gurus mentioned there. The very fact that SSB openly claims himself as an incarnation of Christian God-the-Father and claims that he sent Jesus to our world, makes him a heretical character in the eyes of many Christians. Criticism from charismatic movements is also scarce. All those facts refute another argument of SSB's supporters - that allegations may be a result of jealousy and the struggle for influence from the religious groups and movements numerous in southern India (like Kalki Avatar, Satchitananda Ganapathi Swami, Amritanandamayi, etc.).

My Response: Serguei's criticism, regarding Sathya Sai Baba's claim to God-hood and how many Christians would view this as a heretical statement, is entirely valid and fair.

(4) This article focuses on differences in SSB's followers' attitude towards the allegations concerning sexual molestations. The key question can be formulated as follows: has SSB had any sexual relationships with his young male devotees and if so, what is their meaning?

My Response: My website focuses on Anti-Sai Activist's attitudes toward allegations concerning sexual molestations. The key questions I have been formulated are:

  1. Why are Anti-Sai Activists eager to believe and disperse anonymous allegations of sexual abuse against Sathya Sai Baba?
  2. Why do Anti-Sai Activists exaggerate numbers to alleged victims?
  3. Why do Anti-Sai Activists omit relevant information and contradictions in alleged sexual abuse stories, and choose instead to present packaged, selective and one-way versions to those alleged events?

(5) Apart from those who have never heard of the allegations, there are basically two types of SSB's followers with regard to that negative information. On the one hand there are those who believe that those abuses have never existed. They try to believe that the negative information about SSB is nothing but rumours and hearsay which are allowed to circulate by SSB only in order to test all devotees for their faith in Bhagavan Baba and, after all, to separate husk from grain. On the other hand there are those who assume that those relationships do exist but they try to rationalise them in some specific spiritual way. And these two types will never come to terms. Neither the SSO nor SSB have made any efforts to clarify the situation for the followers so far.

My Response: I have yet to see any Anti-Sai Activist question the contradictions in alleged victim's testimonies. As a matter of fact, click here to view my email correpondence with Dave Lyons where he emailed and criticized me and my opinions without having read my site. Not only that, Dave refused to read my site or my viewpoints because, as he said, "And no, I did not access your blurb. Shah and Goldstein's responses were enough for me." The same thing was done by Brian Steel, whose link I provided earlier. Brian criticized me and my articles without having read them. Lisa Tice also criticized me and my articles after "merely scanning" my website.

It is undeniable that the majority of information against Sathya Sai Baba is unsubstantiated, second/third-hand, hearsay, gossip and anonymous. Out of alleged "thousands" of sexual abuse victims, Anti-Sai Sites have only been able to acquire the names to eight people who use real names (technically 6, because 2 of these alleged victims said that Sathya Sai Baba did not sexually abuse or molest them) in the past 5-8 years.

It is also undeniable that some Sai devotees will resort to many far-fetched explanations regarding Sathya Sai Baba's alleged actions. Some of these explanations are "karma", "past lives", "kundalini", "shakti-pot" and "predetermination". As a matter of fact, many Hare Krsna's resort to these very same excuses in association with Lord Krsna's exploits with married women, killings of various people, lies and thievery. The same has been done with the Old Testament where believers try to justify the atrocities commanded by God. Consequently, it is a historical fact that believers resort to supernatural, unreasonable and illogical explanations when it comes to God or God-like figures. This is not unique to Sathya Sai Baba and some of his followers.

One of the primary objectives of this website is to provide information that has been purposely suppressed from the general public regarding sexual abuse allegations against Sai Baba. The general public is perfectly entitled to know the contradictions in alleged victim's testimonies, the online behavior to some of these alleged victims and the lack of character of many Anti-Sai Activists (who disperse these stories on the internet).

(6) Those who do not believe the allegations to be true can find indirect confirmation to their position in SSB's discourses (see especially Christmas discourse 2000) where he spoke strongly against lies and calumny against him, or in an official letter of Mr Vajpayee (then Prime Minister of India) where he called all allegations against SSB "wild, reckless and concocted". They can find a great support for themselves in a speculation that in SSB presence a person's consciousness alters so dramatically that one cannot say for sure whether something really happened or was a sort of a hallucination or day-dreaming. An example of this sort of explanation or rationalisation we can see in a Danish documentary "Seduced" in an interview with a Danish follower of SSB, Prof. Peter Pruzan.

My Response: Sathya Sai Baba is perfectly entitled to speak out against what he perceives to be calumny against himself. Similarly, Mr. Vajpayee is also perfectly entitled to his opinion as well. It is amusing that Anti-Sai Activists voice their opinions (many unsubstantiated and misrepresentative of known facts) and actively try to suppress and berate other opinions that clash with their own.

Anti-Sai Activists try to make their case despite no court cases ever being filed (first-hand by alleged victims) in a court of law in India. Not even one alleged victim has utilized free, "world class legal resources" to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice. Not even one single affidavit has ever been made public (despite numerous claims to "20", "scores" and "over a hundred" affidavits being in existence and published on the internet). The petition signatures have never been independently verified and SaiPetition.net refuses to verify them. "Evidence" is cited from mostly anonymous sources or people using a first name or a pseudonym. No documents. No affidavits. No court cases. No first-hand complaints filed in India. No independent agencies verifying their alleged data. No anything! Despite these facts, Anti-Sai Activists have the audacity to attack those who question their viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims.

(7) However a significant number of SSB's followers have either first-hand experiences or testimonies from the people they cannot but believe. They cannot deny existence of those relationships without neglecting their common sense. They should not abandon their duties as citizens who need to respect principles of accountability and their duties under the law. So the problem of understanding and interpretation arises for them. If those actions of SSB are the result of sexual desires, that is of human nature, then SSB is not God at all and not an enlightened person free from worldly desires, quite irrespective of the question of whether or not miracles and good works associated with him are real or not. Then his conduct can be qualified as homosexual promiscuity and indiscriminate homosexual activity and sexual abuse of minors. It is even far from what homosexual love is reported to be. In that case everything collapses: faith, hope, aspirations. In that case one faces a terrible and cynical fraud.

My Response: Serguei relies on secret and private information regarding "a significant number of SSB's followers have either first-hand experiences or testimonies from the people they cannot but believe". Who are these "significant number of SSB's followers" and how does Serguie know about them? More unsubstantiated claims from Serguei Badaev.

As I have said before, the majority of alleged sexual abuse victims were not "minors". Most of them were 18+, qualifying them as adults. The 6 people listed as being sexually abused (minus the two who said they were not sexually abused or molested) are: 1) Alaya Rahm (18 years old when allegedly abused); 2) Said Khorramshahgol (21 years old when allegedly abused); 3) Jens Sethi (21+, an adult and married); 4) Conny Larsson (31 years old when allegedly abused); 5) Jed Geyerhahn (15/16 years old when allegedly abused) and 6) Hans De Kraker (21+, an adult when allegedly sexually abused).

Putting aside the miracles and acts of philanthropy attributed to Sathya Sai Baba, not even one of these alleged victims has filed a court case, first-hand, in an Indian court of law. As a matter of fact, not one of them has even tried! Consequently, all of these "homsexual" accusations are based on what may have happened, not on what has been established as having happened.

(8) Here is an example of such a crisis from public testimonies of a Russian SSB devotee ("R"). He stated that SSB as the Avatar and the Divine Master was very dear to him. SSB transformed all his life. All the positive changes that had taken place in him for the several previous years he related to him personally, to his support and his spiritual guidance. When he came to know about all that negative information, he was absolutely shocked. A big wave of doubts arose in him. All his life was at risk of destruction. Then he decided to analyze the situation. In his mind he put on one plate of a scale all positive things that SSB had given to him. On the other plate he put all the negative information about SSB with all resulting consequences. After that, he came to a solution – he decided to be faithful to SSB and remove all the negative information from his mind. He was not going to claim that all that information was false. But he was not going to investigate it either, he was going just to ignore it and rely upon his own personal experience with SSB. His inner struggle as he described it shows how protective mechanisms of mind can function in such people. We should not blame this behaviour on them because this is a matter of psychological death or life. One Russian SSB devotee ("TP") expressed it even in a more dramatic way. She said: "When I start thinking about all that negative information, I start dying". Another good example is an emotional reaction of one of the administrators of the Russian SSB forum [4], when he tried to stop the discussion of the allegation by the forum members. When I suggested paying attention to some facts he said: "I do not need your facts". Probably he meant that he judged SSB according to his own experience and does not need to know what happened to other people. But this position is not honest because many SSB followers reject the information which does not correspond to their personal experience concerning SSB but at the same time indiscriminately accept all unreliable witnesses and hearsays which support their myth of SSB.

My Response: I have already observed (several times) on the SathyaSaiBaba2 Yahoo forum, people who pretend to be Sai Devotees who clearly have an Anti-Sai bias (for example: "sevasathya", "gopal_bhant" and "bazarbazar2"). Another very disturbing example, is that of Reinier Van Der Sandt, who used multiple, fake names in the above forum and tried to pass himself off as a "neutral individual" and even had imaginary conversations with himself using his other fake identities! After I exposed him for his deceitful behavior, Reinier fully admitted to this activity. Despite his admissions, Anti-Sai Activists consider me as "slandering" Reinier! I guess any truth that does not argue in favor of Anti-Sai Activists is "slander", no matter how well documented it happens to be. Until Serguei can confirm the identities to these anonymous people posting on the Russian Forum, he is basing his conclusions and conjectures on what may be nothing more than Anti-Sai Activists posing as devotees.

(9) Such fragmentation of reality, ignoring some of its aspects, is denial or can even be pathological repression. This is well known in psychology and leads to a cognitive dissonance and can produce serious psychological problems. Probably that is why some followers like Ram Das Awle [5] try to interpret that negative information through a distorted perception of what can be some secret tantric rituals, spiritual initiations or specific procedures of healing. As the last argument there is an idea that the actions of enlightened masters like SSB are beyond understanding of ordinary people with narrow and limited minds.

My Response: Anti-Sai Activists become very offended when anyone questions their state of mind. However, Serguei is implying that Ram Das Awle has some sort of "serious psychological problem" due to "cognitive dissonance". This once again points to the double standards that Anti-Sai Activists use and abuse to promote their viewpoints and suppress other's viewpoints. Whenever anyone questions an Anti-Sai Activist's state of mind, they are accused of "slander", "ad hominem tactics" and "defamation". At the same time, Anti-Sai Activists feel they are perfectly entitled to pass judgment on other's state of mind, with impunity.

Even Robert Priddy, to this day, still states on his website (about Sathya Sai Baba): "...and I do not regard him as any ordinary human being". So if one of the most prolific Anti-Sai writers does not consider Sathya Sai Baba as "any ordinary human being", why is it that devotees are not entitled to express the same opinion? After all, if someone is not an "ordinary human being", their actions are not like others and cannot be regarded as such (which would differentiate them from other "ordinary human beings" to begin with). I guess Priddy, according to Serguei, is one of those people who has a "narrow and limited mind". Serguei made the argument thus, not I.

(10) For some SSB's followers psychological transfer takes place. They imprint SSB as a figure of a parent. Not surprisingly, they call SSB "mother-Sai", some even call him "Daddy". The name "Sai Baba" is interpreted by Sai Baba himself as "Divine mother-father". Here is the position of one Russian follower ("SB") who, facing the allegations against SSB, admitted they are quite possibly true. But this did not result in turning away from SSB or analysis of those allegations. He commented his position as follows: "I was perishing and he saved me. He is like a father for me. One should not renounce his parents whatever they are".

My Response: This "psychological transfer" is not limited to Sai devotees and it never has been. The same Father concept is used in Christianity as well. Even Jesus referred to God as his "Heavenly Father" and taught his disciples to pray to "Our Father who art in heaven..." People relate to their God-concepts differently. Some relate to God as Mother Nature, the Divine Mother, the Divine Father, Mother & Father, their Child (Bala-Krsna), Lover (Gopikas) and even Husband (Radha and Gopikas). In some convents, nuns wear rings that are symbolic of wedding Jesus Christ. So it is not unusual for believers or followers to relate to God in some sort of familiar way. Far be it for Serguei to tell others they are not entitled to believe in God as they choose.

(11) Another specific example is Gerald 'Joe' Moreno (see his web site [6]). He focuses on criticizing SSB critics and their writings. Trying to refute allegations against SSB by refuting his critics, he pretends to be impartial, fair and scrupulous. But, unfortunately, his activities bear very unscrupulous fruits. He is eager to notice any tiny "splinter" in the eyes of SSB critics but systematically ignores the "wooden beam" in the eyes of SSB and his defenders. He makes many ad hominem arguments, including serious personal slurs and defamations.

My Response: Serguei should substaniate his claims that I make "many ad hominem arguments, including serious personal slurs and defamations". Despite feigning impartiality, Seguei does not say one word regarding the "many ad hominem arguments, including serious personal slurs and defamations" made against me by his Anti-Sai Activist friends. This is a perfect example of Serguei's self-serving hypocrisy in action. Furthermore, I have backed up all of my opinions with screen captures and links to Anti-Sai websites. I do not blindly attack others.

Serguei said that I am "eager to notice any tiny 'splinter' in the eyes of SSB critics". Serguei does not divulge how Anti-Sai Activists (including himself) have noticed every "tiny splinter" in Sathya Sai Baba's discourses and have used these innumerable "tiny splinters" against him. Since Serguei is an Anti-Sai Activist, he is inclined to overlook the serious (and very real) character flaws present in some of his fellow Anti-Sai Activists. Perhaps the reason that Sergeui can't see this fact is because of his "cognitive dissonance".

It is also important to point out that Serguei has also indulged in finding (and creating) "tiny splinters" in the eyes of Indulal Shah and the Sathya Sai Org. For example, Serguei wrote an article where he said:

"Anyway, after all that happened to the so-called UNESCO conference in September 2000, it was not quite correct for 'Sanathana Sarathi' to publish that 'Dr. Leonarda Jekantaite, Secretary General of UNESCO (Lithuania) presented the Keynote Address.' (Sanathana Sarathi, v.43, October 2000, p.317). Though she was 'Secretary-General' of the Lithuanian branch of UNESCO, she was not accredited to represent UNESCO at the conference. This she also confirmed to Robert Priddy by e-mail when he had investigated the matter with UNESCO. She stated that she was there as a private person interested in Eastern values education. Giving her full UNESCO title 'Sanathana Sarathi' made readers think that she was an official UNESCO representative. This amounts to face-saving deceit"

In the example above, one can see how Serguei completely misrepresented the facts and accused Sanathana Sarathi of "face-saving deceit". Nowhere in the quote: "Dr. Leonarda Jekantaite, Secretary General of UNESCO (Lithuania) presented the Keynote Address" did it say she "represented" Unesco. Serguei conceded, "Though she was 'Secretary-General' of the Lithuanian branch of UNESCO, she was not accredited to represent UNESCO at the conference." Once again, nowhere did Sanathana Sarathi say that Dr. Leonarda Jekantaite "represented" Unesco. Sanathana Sarathi simply stated her title, which is 100% true. Serguei's complete misrepresentation of these facts shows whom is finding "tiny splinters" and making them into "wooden beams".

In the same article, Serguei also said:

"It was also very strange and confusing to read in the inaugural speech of Indulal Shah, the international president of the Sathya Sai Organisation, at the 7th World Conference (November 2000, Prashanthi Nilayam) the following words: "In this context, let me share with you that US magazine 'Week' has chosen to give respect to the UNESCO conference held in Prasanthi Nilayam highlighting the message of Bhagawan on 'Values for All'". (20.11.2000. Materials of the 7th World Conference of the Sai Organisation). After all, it does not matter whether 'Week' has published anything about the conference or not. What matters is that I. Shah has consciously deceived his spiritual brothers and sisters using then UNESCO name for the conference which had nothing to do with it."

Indulal Shah made only one reference about the conference being a "UNESCO Conference". It most certainly appears he misspoke. Since Indulal Shah did not make more than one reference to UNESCO, it was (in all likelihood) a slip of the tongue. Something that Anti-Sai Activists do all the time. This serves to highlight the fact that the prime motivation for Anti-Sai propaganda is not to present the facts, but rather, to wage a smear campaign driven by anger and vindictiveness (probably because in 5 years, Anti-Sai Activists have made zero progress furthering their allegations against Sathya Sai Baba).

Click Here to view an article that Serguei wrote in January 2005 entitled "Questionability of the SSEHV Statistics". Serguei made blind guesses regarding the meaning of a graph that was published in The Hindu Newspaper and the Bal Vikas Magazine four and a half years ago. Admittedly, the graph (that formed the basis for the article) came with no explanations or descriptions. Despite this fact, Serguei accused the SSEHV of misrepresenting the facts. How can this be when the "facts" in question were not known to begin with?

Serguei also wrote an article entitled, "How does Sathya Sai Education in Human Values work in Zambia?" This article was based on information 5 years old. That's right, Serguei had been going back to information written many years ago just to critique it. Consequently, Serguei has his own fair share of seeing "tiny splinters" in the eyes of the Sathya Sai Org and making them into "wooden beams".

(12) An outstanding example of an extreme position can be seen in an attitude of one Russian female devotee ("SL") who lives permanently in Italy. During my talk with her she confessed that she knows very well all about SSB's sexual conduct and sometimes she talks to young boys before interviews to prepare them for the possible contacts of that sort. She added that her love to SSB is so deep that she would become a young male with great joy if she could have sexual relationships with SSB.

My Response: Another example of a conversation with a nameless and faceless person. Click Here to view the hate e-mail I have received from Anti-Sai Activists. Since there are some Anti-Sai Activists who resort to this type of very disturbing behavior, I guess this somehow adequately reflects on the majority of Anti-Sai Activists? If Serguei wants to take a few anonymous postings (from a Russian forum or from private conversations) and apply them to Sai devotees, I see no reason why I can't take the many hate e-mails I have received and apply them to Anti-Sai Activists.

(13) For the last 3-4 years the topic of SSB has quite often appeared on different Russian-speaking fora. On the forum of SSB's followers "Sathya Sai Ru" the slightest criticism of SSB is immediately removed by an alert group of administrators. This forum cannot even discuss the question of the SSO because it may cast a shadow on SSB. On many other forums which are not directly connected with SSB, the topic of SSB usually appears as a dilemma: who is SSB? Spiritual Master, Avatar, divine personality or impostor, paedophile and deceiver? All efforts of SSB followers to ignore this dilemma cannot stop the spreading of that double image of SSB. One type of reaction to the sex allegations is to attach the allegers as themselves being homosexual child molesters and paedohiles. This has been done anonymously on the website where Bon Giovanni is the webmaster, also by Gèrald Morèno and Lisa de Witt against Reinier van der Sandt (who is the webmaster for ExBaba.com) and other expose activists. Further, on Danish film and TV, accusations have been levelled against Conny Larsson as a paedophile by leaders in the Danish Sathya Sai Organisation under the control of Thorbjorn Meyer. This is a known technique of leading attention away from the original accusations.

My Response: This is an amusing comment considering that on Anti-Sai Sites, the slightest criticism of Anti-Sai Activists is immediately suppressed and ignored. Anti-Sai Sites, like SaiGuru.net, post personal attacks against me but refuse to post my rebuttals in return. So it is apparent that Anti-Sai Activists are engaging in the very same reprehensible behavior that they attribute to Pro-Sai Activists.

Seguei poorly researched my article regarding Reinier Van Der Sandt. I never called Reinier a "homosexual, child molester or a pedophile". I simply re-posted material that Reinier put on a Yahoo Forum himself. I rightly expressed my concern regarding this information. Click Here to view my pages about R.F.J. Sandt. Reinier openly admitted (Click Here) to looking for child porn sites to see how easy they were to find! Reinier van der Sandt said (yes, this is an actual quote):

"I found lots of kiddy porno-sites with very much child porn pics, but..., but... it was impossible for me to watch it for very long, because when I was clicking on an image to enlarge, other pages were popping up so fast on my computer screen, that I could not open such a site, in fact, all kiddy porno sites - as what I have seen of it - have multi pop up techniques, which makes it difficult for the kiddy porno watcher to watch easily..."

Why would Reinier van der Sandt want to peruse any porn site and enlarge thumbnail pictures of children being sexually abused? As if this isn't disgusting enough, R.V.D. Sandt said:

"Only in the opening pages I saw some kiddy porn, when I wanted to continue and see more, I had to suscribe and/or pay." Reinier vandersandt tried to justify viewing illegal child porn sites by saying, "Internet kiddy porno can be obtained, I have to correct myself on what I was previously writing on this board, I have been looking for kiddy porn on the internet - NOT AS A CUSTOMER, BUT BECAUSE I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHETHER ONE CAN OBTAIN EASILY FILTHY KIDDIE PORNO!!!"

Apparently he found the "filthy kiddie porno" he searched for. But that was not enough! RVDS found "lots of kiddie porno sites", "wanted to continue and see more" and even tried to enlarge pictures of children being sexually abused. Reinier Van Der Sandt justified his behavior by saying what he did was alright because he was "not a customer". Disgusting! RVDS is saying it is OKAY to view child pornography as long as you are not a "customer".

Apparently, Serguei sees nothing wrong about Reinier's admission to viewing child pornography (Serguei said absolutely nothing about it). One can be certain that if a Pro-Sai Activist made the same confession as Reinier did, ex-devotees would not ignore it, but would broadcast it wherever they could. I find it very disturbing how Serguei is not concerned, in the least, about Reinier's viewing of child pornography (despite his apparent sensitivies to sexual abuse and molestations). This speaks volumes about Serguei and his deep bias and excuse-making for the Anti-Sai coterie he belongs to. Let us see how Serguei will try to justify Reinier's actions (or perhaps ignoring it would be better?). When it comes to Sathya Sai Baba, his every action and word are analyzed for sexual content. When it comes to Anti-Sai Activists and their perverse sexual statements, the policy is to ignore, suppress or character assassinate the person who brings these facts to the attention of the general public. Tough luck, Serguei!

(14) Although many followers believe that SSB's glory will spread around the globe, it is clear that a black shadow will follow him everywhere. It is clear that SSB has taken his place in the history of New Religious Movements in line with such notorious characters as Osho (aka Rajneesh), Muktananda, Chinmoy, Adi Da, Kriyananda (J. Donald Walters), etc. And among his followers who value honesty you can always find two clear types: those who are too simple-hearted and simple-minded to be concerned about those allegations (they just do not pay any attention to them) and those who are in their search for truth, even though they are eager to be open and frank to people and to the world, carry a heavy burden of inner struggle, taboo and reservation in their souls.

My Response: Among Anti-Sai Activists, you will find only one kind of mentality, i.e., "Focus and disperse the negative. Ignore and discredit the positive." This website is the result of my search for the truth. Anti-Sai Activists have shown that they are neither fair, honest or open-minded. This "black shadow" will follow them wherever they go. It is clear that there are many ex-devotees who carry a "heavy burden of inner struggle". This is evidenced by their hate-filled writings and vicious attacks. Consequently, Serguei's critiques of devotees is comparable to "the pot calling the kettle black".