Hearsay Allegations Acknowledged Since 2001
Hearsay Allegations Against Sathya Sai Baba Acknowledged By Anti-Sai Sympathizers Since 2001
Even as far back as 2001, people sympathetic with Anti-Sai Activists were questioning the numerous hearsay claims of sexual abuse against Sathya Sai Baba. On the Sunrise Chat Page, the following conversations were recorded:
59: 11-01-01 TERRIE
“I agree with you about the non-value of hearsay. That is one reason that I have ‘retired’ from the exposé, except for helping a little with Sunrise. The Sunrise staff will not emphasize the molestation stories because we don’t know anyone personally who was molested. We also will no longer post letters by someone who says, “I know somone who was molested,” or “I’m in contact with victims.” If the so-called victims want to fight for what is right, then it is up to them to speak out and use their real names, not send their message via a third party. It is the victims who should be carrying the exposé, not those who are relying on hearsay.”
66: 11-05-01 TERRIE
“Barry, I am not the ex-devotee in the street. I’ve helped with Sunrise almost from its beginning and have monitored discussion boards. If you and everyone else who personally knows victims have not seen fit to put even one victim in touch with me (aside from the few well known victims who have posted their stories on the Internet), where does that put faith and trust? Do you think I am going to shout the names of sb’s victims from the rooftops??? I am therefore put in my present position of not being a credible witness to anything. Time to leave the floundering exposé.”
72: 11-08-01 BARRY PITTARD
“I shall briefly mention an issue which, I suppose, will have to keep coming up until it is resolved. Quite a few pro ssb apologists AND former devotees have asked: Where are the victims? One of the difficulties encountered again and again is this: some victims say they will testify, then back off. Some would like to but are afraid re e.g., parents, friends, work situations, handling the emotional stuff that comes up … etc. Not everyone agrees with all the secrecy. I see a real point in it. When I get time, I shall perhaps make out the case. I used to think it was obvious; however, I find that not all former devotee activists agree. I’d be happy for them to make out a sustained, well-argued case for openness. Personally, I have found that - at least for the time being - the fewer persons who have access to victims’ information the more secure they feel, and the better becomes the rapport. As I view it, if we could all be sure that there is not, sometimes, mischief abroad, and, at other times, even simple human inadvertences, then the case for secrecy may be quite dismal. Love, Barry”
73: 11-08-01 SUNRISE
“We continue to feel that the victims should be out there fighting for themselves and any future victims there might be. The current situation reminds us of the prince (victims) who sends his servant (non-victims working for the exposé) to fetch the bride (the truth about sb). The bride never makes it back to the prince, but runs off with the servant. (Without the victims, the truth will be known only to a few “believers,” and the exposé will fail.) The exposé cannot succeed without the victims having the courage to present themselves before the world and tell their story.” (Reference)
Fast forward to the current time and the situation has not changed one bit. The Anti-Sai Movement is mostly carried on the shoulders of Ex-Devotees who were never “molested” or “sexually abused” themselves.
Although a few alleged victims were very vocal on the internet, they have refused to file even a basic police complaint against Sathya Sai Baba in India. For example, Said Afshin Khorramshahgol claimed he was sexually abused (although at the time of his alleged abuse he was not aware that Baba’s actions were “sexual”) and made literally thousands of posts (and created his own website) shouting about his alleged sexual abuse. Therefore, Afshin was not embarrassed or afraid about parents, friends or fellow employees finding out. Nor was he afraid of “handling the emotional stuff that comes up”. So why haven’t Anti-Sai Activists assisted Afshin in filing a police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India? The answer is because Afshin Khorramshahgol is not credible. Afshin claimed that Baba touched his penis, made Afshin touch his penis and that Baba was moaning “sexually” while making “loud, wild voices”, yet did not realize all this was sexual until after he saw a video allegedly showing Baba faking a materialization many months after his alleged interviews. Said Afshin Khorramshahgol’s online behavior also shows he appears to have very disturbing mental issues. Despite critics claiming that Sathya Sai Baba’s “empire” is worth “billions of dollars”, not even money-hungry lawyers will touch alleged victims. Ever wonder why?
Therefore, the Anti-Sai Movement relies almost exclusively on people who were never “sexually abused” by Sathya Sai Baba. The Anti-Sai Movement is based solely on the contradictory stories of six non-anonymous and alleged “victims” and numerous hearsay allegations, rumors, gossip, speculations, assumptions, conspiracy theories, second/third-hand accounts and anonymous accusations. This sums up the Anti-Sai Movement in a nutshell.
- Sathya Sai Baba has never been proven to be a “charlatan”.
- Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime.
- Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime.
- Sathya Sai Baba has never had even one single complaint lodged against him by any alleged victim, first-hand, in India. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India (the only place where courts would have jurisdiction over Baba as an individual defendant).
These are the cold, hard facts and no rationalist, critic, skeptic or ex-devotee can provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence to the contrary.
Anti-Sai Activist’s greatest accomplishments lie in conning the general public with deception, rhetoric and propaganda. Ex-Devotees have become extremely proficient in recycling their Anti-Sai slop and peddling it off as the “truth” to the unsuspecting masses. Needless to say, even those sympathetic with ex-devotees were disturbed by the numerous hearsay accounts leveled against Sai Baba. In 2001, Barry Pittard said “the case for secrecy may be quite dismal”. Many years later and Barry Pittard is still resorting to the “secrecy” and “confidential” excuses. The Anti-Sai Movement has all but collapsed on itself and the exposé has “failed” and is “floundering” (furthered by Unesco’s Letter of Regret, Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit and the US State Department Removing All Indirect References To Sathya Sai Baba From Their Website). There is simply no verifiable proof that can be cited to support the claim that the Anti-Sai Movement has any steam left to fuel it. There is plenty of proof, however, that the Anti-Sai Movement has plenty of hot air left to fuel it.