Gerald Joe Moreno

Archive for the ‘Brian Steel’ Category

Tulasi Srinivas ‘Winged Faith: Rethinking Globalization and Religious Pluralism through the Sathya Sai Movement’

Tulasi Srinivas is an assistant professor of anthropology at Emerson College and is the author of the book “Winged Faith: Rethinking Globalization and Religious Pluralism through the Sathya Sai Movement” (448 pages, 18 illlus., ISBN: 978-0-231-14933-4). Tulasi Srinivas’ book “Winged Faith” has been publicized on the internet and through Columbia University Press with the following summary:

The Sathya Sai global civil religious movement incorporates Hindu and Muslim practices, Buddhist, Christian, and Zoroastrian influences, and “New Age”-style rituals and beliefs. Shri Sathya Sai Baba, its charismatic and controversial leader, attracts several million adherents from various national, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. In a dynamic account of the Sathya Sai movement’s explosive growth, Winged Faith argues for a rethinking of globalization and the politics of identity in a religiously plural world.

This study considers a new kind of cosmopolitanism located in an alternate understanding of difference and contestation. It considers how acts of “sacred spectating” and illusion, “moral stakeholding” and the problems of community are debated and experienced. A thrilling study of a transcultural and transurban phenomenon that questions narratives of self and being, circuits of sacred mobility, and the politics of affect, Winged Faith suggests new methods for discussing religion in a globalizing world and introduces readers to an easily critiqued yet not fully understood community. (Reference)

Prior to the publication of “Winged Faith”, Tulasi Srinivas presented her research on the Sathya Sai movement in a lecture and two abstracts entitled:

  • “The Body, Sex and the Democratization of Transparency: Rethinking Religion and Globalization through the Sathya Sai Movement”
  • “The Truant Ascetic: Transcendence and Escape in the Transnational Sathya Sai Movement”
  • “Building Faith: Religious Pluralism, Pedagogical Urbanism, and Governance in the Sathya Sai Sacred City”

As one can see, a more ‘neutral’ title was chosen for Tulasi Srinivas’ book.

For those unfamiliar with Sathya Sai Baba, it would appear that Tulasi Srinivas’ convoluted observations about the Sathya Sai movement are well thought out, impartial and well researched. For those who are familiar with Sathya Sai Baba, however, Tulasi Srinivas’ book “Winged Faith” is poorly researched, highly biased and heavily relies on “former followers” ‘anti’ internet material against the Guru.

To obtain a better understanding of the flaws and failings in Tulasi Srinivas’ book “Winged Faith”, it is best to read the “Notes” section first and then see how Tulasi Srinivas attempted to further and formulate various arguments using those notes.

The ‘Notes’ Section In ‘Winged Faith’ By Tulasi Srinivas

The “Notes” section in “Winged Faith” is very important because it reveals how poorly Tulasi Srinivas researched her information about the Sathya Sai movement, especially in relation to the controversial material about the Guru. Tulasi Srinivas conducted her research into the Sathya Sai movement from early 2001 through late 2009, interviewed Sathya Sai devotees, communicated with former followers of Sathya Sai Baba, made trips to Sathya Sai Baba’s ashram, attended various Sai Centers and made various updates to her book before its 2010 publication.

In the “Acknowledgements” section in her book (ix, x), Tulasi Srinivas said she presented portions of “Winged Faith” to the American Anthropological Association meetings in 2004 and 2005, the South Asia meetings at Madison, Wisconsin in 2004, the Society for Psychological Anthropology meetings in 2005, the American Academy of Arts and Science, the Institute for Religion and Culture at the University of Virginia and the Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna, in 2001.

Consequently, Tulasi Srinivas is no novice to the topic of Sathya Sai Baba and her tattered research cannot be attributed to unfamiliarity with the Sathya Sai movement. The following references were taken from the “Notes” section in “Winged Faith” with critiques and comments made by Gerald Moreno.

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, And Power”; Reference 74; Page 373: Tulasi Srinivas claimed the link http://www.saibaba-aclearview.com/contents1.html was removed from the internet. The link, however, is operable and was never removed from the internet.

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, And Power”; Reference 48; Page 372: Tulasi Srinivas stated that Joe ‘Gerald’ Moreno is a “devotee” of Sathya Sai Baba. Moreno is not a “devotee” of Sathya Sai Baba and this information was published on Moreno’s official FAQs Page in early 2005 (just after Moreno first got involved in the Sathya Sai controversy and created a FAQs page). It remains unknown where Tulasi Srinivas obtained her disinformation about Moreno being a “devotee” of Sathya Sai Baba.

Although Moreno runs the largest internet websites exposing the many smear campaigns waged against Sathya Sai Baba by critics and ex-devotees, Tulasi Srinivas never attempted to contact Moreno even once although she cited links to his websites. This glaring fact would seem to imply that Tulasi Srinivas was keener on obtaining ‘anti’ material from former followers rather than obtaining ‘pro’ material from Moreno.

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, And Power”; Reference 33; Page 371: Tulasi Srinivas selectively referred to Keith Ord’s allegations of “hugging and genital fondling” against Sathya Sai Baba. However, all other relevant information and details about Keith Ord’s allegations were purposely withheld.

In 1992, Keith Ord (who is openly a homosexual) was interviewed by a Dutch journalist named Piet van der Eijk for an article entitled “De Wonderdoener”. Keith Ord personally claimed that Sathya Sai Baba literally and miraculously transmogrified his penis into a vagina by clapping his hands over his head! Keith Ord made it very clear that Sathya Sai Baba was not a “hermaphrodite”, but that the Guru literally and miraculously turned his penis into a vagina by clapping his hands.

Although Keith Ord talked to Alexandra Nagel about the alleged events in his private interviews with the Guru, he never told her about the amazing (and quite frankly unbelievable) ‘penis-turned-vagina’ miracle that he related to Piet van der Eijk.

If Tulasi Srinivas revealed this information about Keith Ord to her colleagues and students, there is little doubt they would all laugh her out of Emerson College. It is safe to say that academics, scholars, college students and general readers would not likely accept Keith Ord as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement.

Of course, the question remains: Why did Tulasi Srinivas accept Keith Ord as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement?

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, And Power”; Reference 28; Page 371: Tulasi Srinivas claimed that Sathya ‘Satch’ Purcell alleged he was “sexually abused” by Sathya Sai Baba. However, all other relevant information and details about Sathya ‘Satch’ Purcell’s allegations were purposely withheld.

Satch Purcell (real name “Sathya Sai Purcell”) claimed after fourteen years of silence that Sathya Sai Baba “covertly grasped” his groin in the presence of his mother while entering the interview room at the Guru’s ashram. Needless to say, Sharon Purcell (Satch’s mother) never mentioned (in her letters to Glen Meloy) that her own son was inappropriately touched by Sathya Sai Baba (nor were any other ex-devotees aware of this information). Satch Purcell kept his allegation a secret for fourteen years until after the death of his mother (even though she was vehemently opposed to the Guru).

Satch Purcell’s entire “sexual abuse” allegation against Sathya Sai Baba is comprised of the following one sentence: “As I stepped into the room, Sai Baba held the door open and pressed his other hand firmly into my groin area and in a very concealed way.” So “concealed”, in fact, Satch Purcell’s mother did not see the event even though she was standing right behind him. The alleged contact only lasted a few seconds and this one sentence documents the entire act of alleged “sexual abuse” that Tulasi Srinivas mentioned in her book.

It remains unclear how many people would actually consider the alleged account of Satch Purcell to be “sexual abuse”. Is this information irrelevant to the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba? Tulasi Srinivas seems to think so as she purposely withheld this information from her readers.

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, And Power”; Reference 28; Page 371: Tulasi Srinivas claimed that Ullrich Zimmermann alleged he was “sexually abused” by Sathya Sai Baba. However, all other relevant information and details about Ullrich Zimmermann’s allegations were purposely withheld.

Ullrich Zimmermann is a New Age follower of Ramtha (an alleged 36,000 year-old entity as channeled through the psychic medium JZ Knight). Ullrich Zimmermann originally recalled his alleged experiences with Sathya Sai Baba while drunk at a Ramtha wine ceremony and after the 36,000 year-old entity commanded him through JZ Knight to “teach Sai Baba a lesson”. Ullrich Zimmermann described his experiences with Sathya Sai Baba as “white tantra” and explicitly stated (several times) that he was NOT sexually abused and his experiences were an “honor” conferred upon him!

Ullrich Zimmermann also claimed that Sathya Sai Baba instantaneously cured him of a long-term breathing ailment by materializing oil and applying it to his chest along the “kundalini line”.

And to top it all off, Ullrich Zimmermann actually claimed that Sathya Sai Baba literally and miraculously transmogrified his penis into a vagina (and vice versa) twice simply by snapping his fingers! In addition, Zimmermann also claimed he saw a flash of white light fly out the Guru’s penis! These are the ludicrous (and quite frankly unbelievable) stories that Tulasi Srinivas apparently needed to withhold from her readers so that her smears against Sathya Sai Baba would be more believable.

Furthermore, Robert Priddy (a former follower heavily referenced by Tulasi Srinivas in her book “Winged Faith”) alleged that people who believe in psychics and channelers belong to the “lunatic fringe” seen in cults, ashrams and new religious movements (Ref).

If Tulasi Srinivas revealed this information about Ullrich Zimmermann to her colleagues and students, there is little doubt they would all laugh her out of Emerson College. It is safe to say that academics, scholars, college students and general readers would not likely accept Ullrich Zimmermann as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement.

Of course, the question remains: Why did Tulasi Srinivas accept Ullrich Zimmermann as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement?

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, And Power”; Reference 28; Page 371: Tulasi Srinivas stated that “Ulrich Zimmermann’s account was originally videotaped and put on YouTube in mid-2006 but was removed two months later”. Actually, Ullrich Zimmermann’s accounts were first released in December 2006 on Blip.tv and in January 2007 on YouTube and they are still online and have never been removed from the internet (Refs: 0102). It would appear that Tulasi Srinivas failed to update this information from 2006 although her book was published in 2010.

Notes; “Illusion, Play, And Work In A Moral Community”; Reference 17; Page 364: Tulasi Srinivas cited Moreno’s website but misspelled his “saisathyasai.com” domain as “sathyasai.com”.

The correct link is:
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Priddy/robert-priddy-deception.html

Tulasi Srinivas published the link as:
http://www.sathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A.Priddy/robert-priddy-deception.html

Since Tulasi Srinivas double-checked the links she published in her book (even claiming that various links were removed from the internet), one is left to wonder why she misspelled the link to Moreno’s webpage about Robert Priddy. Would it have to do with the fact that Tulasi Srinivas heavily relied on Robert Priddy’s ‘anti’ material against Sathya Sai Baba?

Robert Priddy (a caustic critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba who once hailed the Guru as God Incarnate) is an LSD Advocate who has falsely and fraudulently libeled Gerald Moreno as being “molested sexually” by Sathya Sai Baba (Refs: 0102030405). Robert Priddy also endorses and allies himself with Reinier van der Sandt, the ExBaba webmaster who has similarly libeled Gerald Moreno as being sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba. If Robert Priddy has the temerity to publicly disperse falsified and fraudulent “sexual molestation” libels against Gerald Joe Moreno, what other falsified and fraudulent “sexual molestation” libels is Robert Priddy peddling against Sathya Sai Baba? Even more disturbing is Robert Priddy’s brazen acts of screencap fraud, pseudo-moralism, DMCA deceit, disgusting lie about Joy Thomas, ridiculous proxy IP accusations, fraudulently impersonating an official Sathya Sai Organization domain, and the laughable Sheila-Waring lie.

This is the type of con artist that Tulasi Srinivas deemed credible and reliable enough to cite in her book “Winged Faith” against Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement (see 361:43; 364:17; 364:25; 370:6; 371:24; 372:49: 376:20).

Notes; “Illusion, Play, And Work In A Moral Community”; Reference 13; Page 364: Tulasi Srinivas claimed “the Sathya Sai Organization uses the concept of leela fairly freely to describe the queue system and other organizational systems at Puttaparthi”. Tulasi Srinivas supported this absurd argument by saying that some Sathya Sai devotees believed the queue and other organizational systems at Puttaparthi were “leelas” (page 165). The Sathya Sai Organization has never made the claims that Tulasi Srinivas attributed to them. Tulasi Srinivas uses the terms “Sathya Sai devotees” and “Sathya Sai Organization” interchangeably although they are not the same and often makes blanket arguments against the entire Sathya Sai Organization based on the views of a few Sathya Sai devotees. This type of generalizing and false association is intellectually dishonest.

Notes; “Deus Loci”; Reference 5; Pages 358 & 359: Tulasi Srinivas made several profound errors about Robert Taliaferro Brooke (a former follower of Sathya Sai Baba and a fundamentalist Christian).

Tulasi Srinivas said, “One could argue that Tal Brooke was a spiritual tourist for the twenty odd years he was a Sathya Sai devotee.” In actuality, Tal Brooke was a Sathya Sai devotee for about four years, not “twenty odd years” as erroneously and falsely claimed by Tulasi Srinivas.

Tulasi Srinivas also claimed that Tal Brooke wrote “several books about the wonders of Sathya Sai Baba”. When Tal Brooke was a Sathya Sai devotee, he wrote a manuscript entitled “The Amazing Advent”. Sathya Sai Baba did not bless Tal Brooke’s manuscript and it was never published. Tal Brooke never wrote “several books” about the “wonders of Sathya Sai Baba”.

Tal Brooke published his first book (which was critical of Sathya Sai Baba) in 1976 under the title “Lord Of The Air”. It was republished in 1979 as “Sai Baba, Lord Of The Air”, renamed “Avatar of Night” in 1982 with a reprint in 1984, was renamed “Lord Of The Air: Tales of a Modern Antichrist” in 1990 and reprinted again as “Avatar of Night” in 1999.

Therefore, where exactly did Tulasi Srinivas obtain her complete disinformation regarding Tal Brooke? It baffles the mind that an academic and scholar like Tulasi Srinivas would publish such blatant distortions of the truth although she conducted nine years of research into the Sathya Sai movement (in which Tal Brooke figures prominently as a critic since 1976).

Notes; “Becoming God”; Reference 66; Page 358: Tulasi Srinivas referenced Kyra Kitts (a former follower of Sathya Sai Baba) but omitted all relevant information about her.

Kyra Kitts had her own website (“kyrakitts.net”, which is no longer online) for close to five years in which she solicited herself as a psychic, clairvoyant and spiritual healer who could perform in-person and long-distance healings. Kyra Kitts claimed to have been “overtly psychic since approximately age eleven” and claimed that H. H. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche began appearing to her in inner visions and spoke to her in Tibetan. She also claimed that Sathya Sai Baba appeared to her in a semi-awake/semi-asleep vision that radically changed her life.

When Kyra Kitts visited Sathya Sai Baba in India, she claimed being tormented with “bizarre sexual thoughts”, even in the Guru’s presence. Kyra Kitts claimed that while walking by the meditation bench behind the mandir, she psychically perceived Sathya Sai Baba “in his room masturbating, looking out his window, and laughing at the crowd”. Kyra Kitts said that Sathya Sai Baba looked like a “Fijian gorilla” and referred to the Guru as “Sai Bob, sex cowboy”. Kyra Kitts has/had numerous, chronic, physical ailments that affected her mentally (admittedly) for many years.

If Tulasi Srinivas revealed this information about Kyra Kitts to her colleagues and students, there is little doubt they would all laugh her out of Emerson College. It is safe to say that academics, scholars, college students and general readers would not likely accept Kyra Kitts as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement.

Of course, the question remains: Why did Tulasi Srinivas accept Kyra Kitts as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement?

Notes; “Becoming God”; Reference 24; Pages 353 & 354: Tulasi Srinivas cited Kevin R. D. Shepherd as a “biographer of Shirdi Sai Baba”. Kevin R. D. Shepherd is a vanity self-publisher who admitted he is not an academic and who admitted he dropped out of school at the age of fifteen. Kevin R. D. Shepherd is also a malicious critic of Sathya Sai Baba who has ridiculously accused the Guru of being “closely allied with terrorists” and who fanatically accused Moreno of being an “internet hit man” and an “internet terrorist” (Ref). This is the type of person that Tulasi Srinivas deemed credible enough to cite as a reference in her book.

Notes; “Introduction”; Reference 25; Page 349: Tulasi Srinivas attempted to malign a music group devoted to Sathya Sai Baba named “Lightstorm” and claimed they were “controversially named”. Tulasi Srinivas supported this argument by saying, “A former devotee indicated that Lightstorm was a kind of marijuana.”

A simple two-second Google search for “Lightstorm and Sai Baba” takes one directly to Lightstorm’s official website (which provides their email address).

Moreno emailed Lightstorm on June 23rd 2010 and asked them if there was any truth to the rumor that their name was chosen because it was associated with marijuana. On June 24th 2010, Moreno received an email that stated:

“Dear Atmaself, Joe – No TRUTH in that at all. The name came as a vision and then an actual lightning storm right after. Whoever told you the lie is crazy! I (Johnima) never took drugs of any kind, this body does not even like or take aspirins. Love & Light – Lightstorm ”

Why didn’t Tulasi Srinivas extend two minutes out of nine years of research to contact Lightstorm about the story behind their name? Why would an academic and scholar publish rumors and gossips if not with an ulterior motive to smear and malign?

On the official White House and Drug Policy website one can find an exhaustive list of street names for marijuana. “Lightstorm” is not included in the list although “Bubble Gum”, “African”, “Airplane”, “Astro Turf”, “Babysitter”, “Broccoli”, “Christmas Tree”, “Flower”, “Garbage”, “Giggle”, “Hawaiian”, “Northern Lights” and “Red Cross” are.

Moreno found a marijuana reference for Purple Lightstorm, which is also known as “Purple Cannabis” and “Lightstorm BX1”. Needless to say, the music group Lightstorm did not name their group “Purple Lightstorm” or “Lightstorm BX1”.

Would Tulasi Srinivas accuse the national Red Cross of being “controversially named” because “Red Cross” happens to be a known name for marijuana (with that name being listed on the official White House and Drug Policy website)? Apparently so.

It is exactly these types of shallow, trivial and mean-spirited jabs that call into question Tulasi Srinivas’ alleged ‘neutrality’ and so-called ‘research’. Tulasi Srinivas rather publish rumors and gossips from former followers rather than doing two minutes of footwork herself.

This type of biased behavior is not what one would expect from a credible and neutral academic.

Notes; “Introduction”; References 19 & 20; Page 349: Tulasi Srinivas cited India Today’s ‘Test Of Faith – A God Accused’ and Paul Lewis’ article ‘The Indian Living God, the Pedophilia Claims, and the Duke of Edinburgh Awards’ against Sathya Sai Baba.

Purposely suppressed, however, is the fact that former followers boasted about accomplishing these media exposures themselves.

About the India Today article, Hari Sampath (a former follower) said: “I had initiated and organized about 70 % of the major media stories on Sai Baba, including The Times, India Today, the Danish documentary, Salon.com and several others.”

About the India Today article, Barry Pittard (a former follower) said: “In 2000, I was a member of a small international group of former devotees which ran a number of potent exposure operations. In one of these, we got a 10-page cover story (December 4, 2000) in the prestigious mass circulation weekly magazine India Today. In eleven languages, millions of Indians read this publication, which is somewhat like a Time or Newsweek magazine for India and Indians abroad.”

About Paul Lewis’s article, Sanjay Dadlani (a former follower) said: “What you morons fail to realise is that these things take months of planning and co-ordinated research, especially by journalists and reporters of prestigious newspapers (such as the Times, Daily Telegraph, Australian Age, etc etc) who tend to go off and do their own research in the hope of turning up something new. We already knew about this issue months before the date of publication of course. In fact it was mooted as a front-page story, but at the last minute a development in a legal issue involving PM Tony Blair took precedence and the Sai Baba article was moved to Page 3. No matter, open the paper and it all goes BOOM! in your face … Sorry I couldn’t take part while I was busy participating in this development … Nice picture of the old faggot riding in his ridiculous golf buggy by the way. ;-) … We run the Exposé and the Exposé continues.” (Reference)

India Today and Paul Lewis knowingly withheld their behind-the-scenes collaboration with former followers. Is this information irrelevant to the Sathya Sai controversy? Tulasi Srinivas seems to think so as she purposely withheld this information from her readers.

Notes; “Becoming God”; References 22 & 23; Pages 353 & 355: Tulasi Srinivas published (several times) that Brian Steel claimed “to be neither a devotee or former devotee” of Sathya Sai Baba.

Nevertheless, Tulasi Srinivas actually confirmed that Brian Steel “was a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba from the early 1980s” to 2000 (pages 255 & 256). Why did Tulasi Srinivas attempt to convince (some would say “con”) her readers into believing that Brian Steel was “neither a devotee or former devotee” when she already documented his sixteen years of devotion to Sathya Sai Baba? It would appear that Tulasi Srinivas attempted to dupe readers into believing that Brian Steel was ‘neutral’ so that she could justify her heavy reliance on his ‘anti’ material (see 351:3; 353:18; 353:23; 354:29; 355:35; 355:42; 358:63; 361:51; 361:53; 371:17; 372:38; 372:39).

In Brian Steel’s book “The Powers of Sathya Sai Baba”, he wrote that he conducted worship and bhajans (devotional singing) with other Sai devotees in his house when he was a Sathya Sai devotee. Brian Steel even claimed that vibuthi (sacred ash) miraculously manifested from one of his pictures of Sathya Sai Baba that he worshipped and kept in his house.

Would a “non-former-devotee” conduct devotional singing in his house while worshipping pictures of Sathya Sai Baba, as Brian Steel did? Would a “non-former-devotee” write several books praising and eulogizing Sathya Sai Baba, as Brian Steel did? Brian Steel is even listed on Robert Priddy’s “Ex-office-bearers” webpage as being a Sathya Sai devotee from 1984 – 2000. Apparently, these obvious facts were casually dismissed by the academic and scholar Tulasi Srinivas (although she heavily cited Brian Steel’s ‘anti’ material in her book “Winged Faith”).

Tulasi Srinivas claimed she communicated with Brian Steel from 2006 – 2008 and actually had the audacity to say that Brian Steel’s alignment with former followers “might be involuntary”. Rubbish!

It is disconcerting that Tulasi Srinivas is attempting to peddle her biased research as “credible”, “neutral” and “intellectual” to unsuspecting academics, scholars, college students and general readers.

Moreno’s correspondence with Brian Steel (Emails 01Emails 02) reveals Brian Steel’s clear bias and antagonism against Sathya Sai Baba.

Tulasi Srinivas heavily cited Barry Pittard (a former follower) in “Winged Faith” (see 358:64; 372:30; 371:31; 371:36; 372:58) but purposely withheld all relevant information about him and his many smear and defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and Sathya Sai devotees.

Barry Pittard is a malicious propagator of Robert Priddy’s falsified and fraudulent “sexual molestation” libels against Gerald Joe Moreno. Barry Pittard also endorses and allies himself with Reinier van der Sandt, the ExBaba webmaster who has similarly libeled Gerald Joe Moreno as being sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba. If Barry Pittard endorses and supports falsified and fraudulent “sexual molestation” libels against Gerald Joe Moreno, what other falsified and fraudulent “sexual molestation” libels is he peddling against Sathya Sai Baba? Barry Pittard also accused a high-ranking Sathya Sai devotee of running a pedophile ring from his first-class apartment over looking Central Park in New York (Ref) and purposely misrepresented the former US State Department advisory by claiming they had “named Sathya Sai Baba re Pedophile Allegations”, a bold-faced untruth (Ref). Barry Pittard has also lied about there being 100 affidavits against Sathya Sai Baba, been accused of impropriety, fraudulently claimed to be a Professor, incited Islamic terrorists to kill Jews and Sathya Sai devotees at Puttaparthi, purposely ignores and suppresses relevant facts about BBC interviewee Alaya Rahm and been exposed for his pseudo-moralism.

Had Tulasi Srinivas contacted Moreno, she could have easily obtained this information that calls into question the alleged credibility of Barry Pittard. It would also appear that Tulasi Srinivas read Moreno’s webpages about Barry Pittard (since she cited links to Moreno’s website) but decided to purposely suppress this relevant information about him.

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, and Power”; Reference 37; Page 371: Tulasi Srinivas cited Serguei Badaev (a former follower) in “Winged Faith” but purposely withheld all relevant information about him. Moreno’s articles about Serguei Badaev reveals Badaev’s clear bias, antagonism and poor research against Sathya Sai Baba.

Tulasi Srinivas cited Conny Larsson (a former follower) in “Winged Faith” but purposely withheld all relevant information about him and his many smear and defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and Sathya Sai devotees. Tulasi Srinvas said that Conny Larsson was a “spiritual teacher” (page 256), which is a gross over-simplification of known facts.

Bi-Sexual Conny Larsson is peddling himself as a self-proclaimed Prophet and psychic trance channeler for Maharishi Vyasa. Conny Larsson’s “trance medium” claims were even published in a national Swedish newspaper (‘Norrlandska Socialdemokraten’) under the title Medium drog full hus (English: “Medium Draws Full House”), which documented a couple of ‘trance channeling’ demonstrations by Conny Larsson.

Robert Priddy and Kevin R. D. Shepherd attempted to defend Conny Larsson and were subsequently silenced by two scathing responses by Moreno entitled “Kevin Shepherd & Psychic Medium Conny Larsson” and “Conny Larsson Admits To Psychic Fraud”.

Conny Larsson claims he is a Psychic Healer and Spirit-Medium who uses crystal pendulums to diagnose disorders, blockages and ills in other’s auras (Ref). Conny Larsson also sells himself as a Meditation Guru, Spirituality & Yoga Master, Bhajan Leader, Mantra Guru, Vedic Master, etc. Conny Larsson is the founder of vedicmasterclass.org and heartandsoulexpo.com, which solicits the services of numerous psychics, mediums, channelers and New Age healers (many who have gurus and alleged “angel” contacts).

Even more disturbing is the fact that Conny Larsson self-disclosed his psychiatric diagnosis (made by a psychiatrist) of him being “psychoinfantile”, which is also known as Histrionic Personality Disorder. Conny Larsson has also been very open about his bisexuality, which was published in Swedish newspapers by various journalists.

Apparently, if you hear voices in your head, channel Vyasa, perform trance healings, converse with dead people, channel the spirits of dead animals, hold negative views about Sathya Sai Baba, perform séances and have been officially diagnosed with a psychiatric personality disorder, give Tulasi Srinivas a call because you might be her next credible reference against Sathya Sai Baba.

If Tulasi Srinivas revealed this information about Conny Larsson to her colleagues and students, there is little doubt they would all laugh her out of Emerson College. It is safe to say that academics, scholars, college students and general readers would not likely accept Psychic Medium Conny Larsson as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement.

Of course, the question remains: Why did Tulasi Srinivas accept Conny Larsson as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement?

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, and Power”; Reference 40; Page 372: Tulasi Srinivas cited PhD Timothy Conway in “Winged Faith” but purposely withheld all relevant information about him.

Although Timothy Conway can often be seen attempting to present himself as a rational and logical voice against Sathya Sai Baba, he is a true believer and promoter of Gurus [3], Mystics [3], Enlightened Masters [3], psychics [1] [2] [4], levitation [5], bi-location [5], miracles [5], remote-viewing [4], elementals, meditation [2] [6], paranormal powers [5], aliens [4] [10], rebirth [1] [7], reincarnation [1] [7], karma [8], oracles [2], I-Ching [2], sensitives [1] [2], channelers [1] [2], astrology [2], astrologists [2], palm-reading [2], non-duality [9], etc. (the list goes on and on).

For example, if you are looking for an answer to a difficult problem, Timothy Conway PhD suggested the following solutions:

“Ask God (Spirit, the one God-Self) for guidance and for some kind of ‘omen’ or ‘sign,’ if needed, to proceed in a certain direction (i.e., making choice A, B, C or whatever). Be willing to wait several days or weeks (or, in some cases, months or even years for this guidance to manifest)…Use an oracle, such as the I Ching (Book of Changes). More simply, you can ask for Divine Guidance and then flip a coin–with heads meaning one choice, tails meaning the other choice. If you like, flip it 10 times and see if a clear pattern emerges. You might say, ‘Well, how the coin flips is simply due to chance.’ Perhaps. But one can also trust that there is a deeper Principle behind everything that happens, and you can ask this Divine Guiding Intelligence to show you an answer via the coin-tossing process. Alternatively, you can create a slightly more sophisticated oracle of your own by getting out 3 or 4 pieces of paper. Then write ‘yes’ on one, ‘no’ on another, ‘wait’ on a third piece of paper, and, if you like, ‘wrong question’ on the fourth piece of paper. Then turn them face down, scramble them up, and pick one of the 3 or 4 pieces of paper to get guidance this way…You can also consult a psychic ‘sensitive’ and/or an astrologer or a palmist (Indian jyotish astrology followed by Western astrology seem to be the most accurate astrology systems. And, curiously, palmistry and astrology seem to complement each other as different methods for getting to the same ‘karmic’ information on the soul’s mission, destiny, strengths and vulnerabilities).” (Reference)

Timothy Conway also believed and endorsed (Ref) the alleged experiences of Shirlи Klein-Carsh, a so-called “Indigo” (an alleged extraterrestrial alien who voluntarily incarnates on Earth). Shirlи Klein-Carsh claimed she was psychologically, spiritually and artistically guided by a cleverly disguised Alien from Sirius who worked as an electronics repairman in a second-hand shop. Timothy Conway said:

“This is a fascinating study of someone with sensitivities hardly dreamed of by most persons. Other books present the carefully presented and reasoned case for the existence of inter-dimensional aliens interacting with humans. This book goes straight into the mystery and wonder of the human-alien contact.” (Reference)

Timothy Conway also attempted to argue that if Sathya Sai Baba possesses genuine paranormal powers, he could easily “warp spacetime” by creating an “insular interdimensional environment” where he could engage in abuse without easy detection (just as aliens are alleged to do through alien abductions: Ref)!

If Tulasi Srinivas revealed this information about PhD Timothy Conway to her colleagues and students, there is little doubt they would all laugh her out of Emerson College. It is safe to say that academics, scholars, college students and general readers would not likely accept Timothy Conway as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement.

Of course, the question remains: Why did Tulasi Srinivas accept Timothy Conway as a credible and reliable reference in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai movement?

Notes; “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth, And Power”; Reference 28; Page 371: Tulasi Srinivas made reference to the BBC documentary ‘Secret Swami’ and the allegations of sexual abuse by Alaya Rahm. However, all other relevant information and details about Alaya Rahm’s allegations were purposely withheld.

In “Response To Form Interrogatories” in Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society (Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One) Alaya Rahm fully admitted he had been a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 to 2005. Consequently, during Alaya Rahm’s “Divine Downfall” and India Today Anti-Sai interviews and during the filming of the BBC Documentary “Secret Swami” and the “Seduced By Sai Baba” Danish Documentary, Alaya Rahm was under the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol while relating his alleged sexual encounters with Sathya Sai Baba. This crucial information wholly undermines Alaya Rahm’s credibility and irreparably compromises the integrity of his claims. Needless to say, Alaya Rahm’s alcoholism and drug addiction have been purposely suppressed from the general public by former followers, the Rahm Family, Tanya Datta, the BBC and Tulasi Srinivas (Ref).

In pretrial discovery, Alaya Rahm claimed he suffered no psychological trauma that would have required medical or psychiatric care. Alaya identified no psychologist who had ever examined him and his parents never had Alaya undergo psychological counseling despite their repeated and boisterous claims that Alaya was “seriously sexually molested”. The only help that Alaya obtained was a three day seminar from the Landmark Forum on “Empowerment, self help and personal growth” that cost $795 in June 2005 (five years after his alleged abuse and five months after he filed his lawsuits)! It would appear that Al & Marisa Rahm (the parents) were incredibly negligent in getting psychological help for their “seriously sexually molested” son.

Supporting Alaya Rahm’s involvement with illegal street drugs and drug addicts is a secondary court case in November 2007 where Alaya Rahm testified on behalf of his friend Valdez T Woods, who was arrested and convicted for possession of crack cocaine and marijuana with the intent to deliver (PDF Reference). As a matter of fact, Valdez T Woods was arrested within a mile of Alaya Rahm’s then current residence (as revealed in official court records). Alaya Rahm was identified as a “friend and associate” of drug dealer and drug addict Valdez T Woods.

In Alexandra Nagel’s paper entitled “Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or?”, Alaya Rahm personally told Alexandra Nagel that Sathya Sai Baba had literally and miraculously transmogrified his penis into a vagina on two separate occasions by blowing on his fingers! These are the ludicrous (and quite frankly unbelievable) stories that Tulasi Srinivas apparently needed to withhold from her readers so that her smears against Sathya Sai Baba would be more believable.

Former followers have resorted to secrecy, concealment and strategies of silence regarding these facts and adamantly refuse to publicly discuss them (which they have similarly done in association with Conny Larsson’s ‘trance medium’ claims). Apparently, Tulasi Srinivas is following in the footsteps of former followers.

Tulasi Srinivas’ Serious And Potentially Libelous Assertions

In the chapter “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth and Power” (page 256), Tulasi Srinivas published serious and potentially libelous information against Stephen Carthew and Terry Gallagher by claiming Sathya Sai Baba initiated “sexual healing” and “genital oilings” on them. This is totally false information and it cannot be traced to any verifiable references. Tulasi Srinivas cited Alexandra Nagel’s paper “A Guru Accused” to support her assertions although Carthew and Gallagher’s names are not mentioned in Alexandra Nagel’s article. On June 26th 2010, Moreno emailed both Columbia University Press and Tulasi Srinivas and requested the correct reference to support the assertions made about Stephen Carthew and Terry Gallagher. To date, Moreno has not received a reply from either Columbia University Press or Tulasi Srinivas.

‘Winged Faith’ – Too Many Errors To List

The following seven examples are provided to give readers a better idea into Moreno’s contention that the list of errors, inaccuracies, misrepresentations and subjective inferences in Tulasi Srinivas’ book “Winged Faith” are simply too numerous to list:

  1. In the introduction to “Winged Faith” (page 9) Tulasi Srinivas claimed that Sathya Sai Baba’s materialization of vibuthi established himself in association with Shirdi Sai Baba, whom Tulasi Srinivas alleged “also materialized vibuthi for his followers”. Needless to say, Shirdi Sai Baba never “materialized” vibuthi for his followers. Rather, Shirdi Sai Baba took ash from his dhuni (sacrificial fire) and gave it to his followers to effect various cures.
  2. In the chapter “Becoming God” (page 59, figure 1.1), Tulasi Srinivas published an alleged “postcard image” of Sathya Sai Baba as a young man and claimed the image belonged to the “Collection of Tulasi Srinivas”. The image in question is not a postcard, does not belong to Tulasi Srinivas and was actually taken from the saibabaofindia.com domain without their permission or knowledge (view picture reference here). As a matter of fact, the image in question clearly shows the SBOI’s watermark. Before Tulasi Srinivas published her book “Winged Faith”, an internet abstract with similar content was circulated on the internet that similarly published an image taken from Moreno’s vishvarupa.com domain without his permission or knowledge.
  3. In the chapter “Becoming God” (page 75, figure 1.3), Tulasi Srinivas published an alleged “postcard image” of Sathya Sai Baba with other avatars (i.e. Rama, Krishna, Buddha and Shirdi Sai Baba) and claimed the image belonged to the “Collection of Tulasi Srinivas”. The image in question is not a postcard, does not belong to Tulasi Srinivas and was actually taken from the Sri Sathya Sai Books And Publications Trust (SSSBPT) domain without their permission or knowledge (view picture reference here). As a matter of fact, the image in question clearly shows the SSSBPT’s watermark.
  4. In an amusing fit of illogic, Tulasi Srinivas attempted to associate Sathya Sai Baba with the New Age movement (page 20) because a New Age shop in Burlington, Vermont sold Satya Sai Baba Nag Champa (an incense that is not associated in any manner with the Sathya Sai Organization). In fact, Satya Sai Baba Nag Champa is manufactured by Shrinivas Sugandhalaya in Bangalore (see picture reference here). It is a common practice in India for businesses and manufacturers to use the names of popular Saints on their products or in their business logos.
  5. In the chapter “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth and Power” (pages 253 – 257), Tulasi Srinivas made several exaggerated and unfounded claims about JuST (Just Seekers of Truth). Tulasi Srinivas estimated the total strength of JuST to be “roughly one hundred members” even though Barry Pittard specifically told her the number was “thirty-eight”. In truth, JuST is comprised of only thirty-two individuals (Ref). In December 2004, the “Sai Petition Committee” wrote a response to Moreno claiming that there were only six active members speaking on behalf of the collective JuST group (Ref). Tulasi Srinivas also stated “only two Indian names appear as part of the contemporary structure of JuST” (i.e. Hari Sampath and Sanjay Dadlani). Needless to say, neither Hari Sampath nor Sanjay Dadlani belongs to JuST. The only Indian name listed in JuST’s signatories list is Soma Jeyendren (an Indian residing in Australia). Even though this information is readily available on the internet, the academic and scholar Tulasi Srinivas attempted to peddle her subjective speculations as objective truth. Amusingly, when Tulasi Srinivas first attempted to correspond with JuST members in 2004, they “summarily dismissed” her. When Tulasi Srinivas contacted JuST in 2006 they asked for her “credentials”. Tulasi Srinivas stated that the same type of “secrecy and conspiracy mentality” that members of JuST saw in the Sathya Sai Organization, was present in them as well.
  6. In the chapter “Secrecy, Ambiguity, Truth and Power” (page 261), Tulasi Srinivas attempted to make the argument that the issues of “secrecy” and “concealment” were central to the deposition taken from Lewis Kreydick in Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed lawsuit. To support her argument, Tulasi Srinivas enigmatically cited a couple of sentences from Lewis Kreydick’s deposition that were published on Moreno’s website. Tulasi Srinivas cited Lewis Kreydick’s story where Alaya Rahm sat on the Guru’s lap. Tulasi Srinivas pointed out that a lawyer had asked Lewis Kreydick if Alaya Rahm had asked him to keep the story a “secret”, to which Lewis Kreydick replied, “No, no.” (Ref). After enigmatically making reference to this irrelevant material, Tulasi Srinivas took off on a rant about how Sathya Sai devotees “had specific strategies of silence to combat unwanted behaviors and allegations that dealt with the sexual healing issue”. Needless to say, Lewis Kreydick did not in any way refuse to answer any questions during his deposition.

    Had Tulasi Srinivas actually researched the material published on Moreno’s website or had she actually contacted Moreno, she would have discovered that Alaya Rahm publicly and openly discussed his story of sitting on Sathya Sai Baba’s lap at the USA Sai Regional Conference in August 1997, which was attended by a couple hundred Sathya Sai devotees from across the USA and which was videotaped and recorded on audio cassettes (Ref). Alaya Rahm self-disclosed this story before he made his allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and even claimed the experience left him in “ecstasy”. Therefore, Tulasi Srinivas’ enigmatic reference to this story in relation to “secrecy” and “concealment” accusations is entirely without merit.

  7. In the chapter “Out Of God’s Hands” (pages 307 – 312), Tulasi Srinivas exaggerated Sathya Sai devotee’s shopping habits and seemed to defend the notion that the sellers outside Sathya Sai Baba’s ashram do not cheat. In truth, many of the vendors outside Sathya Sai Baba’s ashram do cheat. Why shouldn’t the ashram warn Sathya Sai devotees about the cheating that goes on outside the ashram? Moreno lived at Puttaparthi for almost three consecutive years and he knows from first-hand knowledge that Tulasi Srinivas’ claims about Sathya Sai devotee’s shopping habits are completely biased, inaccurate and misrepresented. Tulasi Srinivas made a huge fuss about Sathya Sai devotee’s wanting their purchases to be free from defects. Who wants to purchase defective merchandise? It is a common sight to see vendors outside the ashram trying to sell worn-out, sun-scorched and old merchandise. Apparently, if Sathya Sai devotees want clean, new and undamaged merchandise, this is a sign of religious extremism and fanaticism, according to Tulasi Srinivas.

Since Tulasi Srinivas was so negligent and careless with her facts and research, how can anyone believe anything she has to say about Sathya Sai Baba, the Sathya Sai movement and the Sathya Sai controversy?

‘Winged Faith’ By Tulasi Srinivas – In Conclusion

In conclusion, Tulasi Srinivas’ book “Winged Faith: Rethinking Globalization and Religious Pluralism through the Sathya Sai Movement” is almost entirely unoriginal. The book essentially repeats and recycles many of the same thoughts and observations made by Lawrence A. Bapp, Deborah A. Swallow, Morton Klass, Smriti Srinivas, Antonio Rigolopoulos and Alexandra Kent. However, Tulasi Srinivas took her so-called ‘research’ a step lower and decided to reference internet propaganda against Sathya Sai Baba.

Tulasi Srinivas correctly stated “despite his critics’ claims of malfaesance, Sai Baba has never been accused (much less convicted) of wrongdoing in an Indian court of law” and “nothing has been proven against Sathya Sai Baba”. It is true that Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai Organization have never (ever) been charged with any crime. It is also true that no alleged victim (and no alleged victim’s mother or father) has ever filed (first-hand) a basic police complaint, public grievance or court case against Sathya Sai Baba or the Sathya Sai Organization in India. Therefore, it is very peculiar and highly unusual that an academic and scholar like Tulasi Srinivas would publish and reference internet propaganda from former followers against Sathya Sai Baba. This type of questionable behavior would seem to imply that Tulasi Srinivas is biased and that she used her book to push an agenda against Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai Organization under the pretexts of “globalization” and “transnational theory” discussions.

Although Tulasi Srinivas believed that Gerald Moreno was a Sathya Sai devotee, she never once attempted to contact or question him. Tulasi Srinivas’ core arguments are based on what she believes to be “secrecy”, “ambiguity”, “strategies of silence”, “polyvalent discourse” and “concealed knowledge” within the Sathya Sai movement. Tulasi Srinivas formulated these arguments by questioning a handful of Sathya Sai devotees about the allegations and then used their few responses (and mostly non-responses) to somehow represent the character and views of the entire Sathya Sai community (composed of millions of people)! Moreno’s open, detailed and direct discussions about the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba posed a direct threat to Tulasi Srinivas’ core arguments (which is probably why she never contacted Moreno in the first place). Therefore, it would appear that the only person guilty of “secrecy”, “ambiguity”, “strategies of silence”, “polyvalent discourse” and “concealed knowledge” is Tulasi Srinivas.

It is indeed ironic that Tulasi Srinivas named her book “Winged Faith” as that is exactly the type of belief she holds in ‘former followers’ and is exactly the type of belief she expects from those reading her discourses about the Sathya Sai movement. Although there is little doubt that the international Sathya Sai movement can be used as an example in “globalization” and “transnational theory” discussions, the numerous inaccuracies in “Winged Faith” solidifies the perception that Tulasi Srinivas’ convoluted and discursive arguments promote mediocrity over merit.

Robert Priddy Dared Not Sue Leo Rebello

It is an irrefutable fact that Sathya Sai Baba and the Sai Organisation refuse to be dragged into Ex-Devotee’s gutter of hate, lies, smears, defamations and libels.

Despite years of unrelenting attacks by Barry Pittard, Robert Priddy. Timothy Conway, Serguei Badaev, Brian Steel, Andries Krugers Dagneaux, Al & Marisa Rahm, Tony O’Clery, Psychic Trance Medium Conny Larsson, etc., Sathya Sai Baba and the Sai Organisation have never (ever) been officially charged with any crime and not even one alleged “victim” has filed a basic police complaint, public grievance or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India (the only place where courts would have jurisdiction over the Guru as an individual defendant). This is an irrefutable statement of fact and critics of Sathya Sai Baba cannot cite any credible or legal references to support their attacks, rumors, gossips and conspiracy theories.

The only legal case filed against Sathya Sai Baba was by Alaya Rahm (the ‘Secret Swami’ superstar), who actually filed bogus suits against the wrong defendants in the wrong country (the suits were filed in the USA and not in India)! Alaya Rahm’s legal cases were all self-dismissed before they ever went to trial. See:

Brian Steel Wrote About Internet Attacks Against Sathya Sai Baba

It is interesting to note that when Brian Steel was a Sai Devotee (he is currently an Ex-Devotee), he wrote about internet attacks in his book “The Powers of Sathya Sai Baba”, Mornington, 1998. This book attempted to categorize the profuse and diverse miracles of Sathya Sai Baba that occur on a global scale. Brian Steel claimed that vibuthi manifested on his picture of Sathya Sai Baba and claimed the guru miraculously saved him from drowning. However, let us take a closer look at Brian Steel’s actual words regarding the internet attacks against Sathya Sai Baba:

Brian Steel: “The Internet allows both (or more!) sides of a topic to be examined. Nevertheless, it is wise to remember that because of freedom of access to anyone with a computer and a modem, the Web is also accessible to people with negative intentions and even to raving lunatics. Literally anyone may have his or her say. (page 158)

Naturally, the Web is also open to critics and detractors. The Indian Skeptics have their own Website and they are supported by other groups and individuals abroad with similiar aims, notably in Canada and Germany. Other groups of skeptics have Web Sites too. But Baba has a white knight on the Worldwide Web to defend Him. The well-known and indefatigable American Sai Baba devotee, Bon Giovanni, who has built up a large and important Website, makes much Baba information and opinion available and provides mnay links with overseas Sai Websites, and even a link to sites critical of Sai Baba(like the Indian Skeptics), which must surely impress even those dour individuals! The inquisitive Web surfer can even find a link on Bon’s Web Pages to an internet book by a Canadian skeptic. The book attempts to show that Sai Baba is neither omniscient or omnipotent. Fortunately, and to his enormous credit, Bon Giovanni actually debates on the ‘Net’ with such critics of Sai Baba. (page 159)

Since Baba does not usually respond to criticism of any kind, there is no fear of a libel suit and so journalists may proceed more or less with impunity to try to sow doubts on Baba’s actions and motives. (pages 150-151)”

Even Brian Steel was aware of the fact that since Sathya Sai Baba rarely responds to criticisms of any kind, people feel free to libel him because they have no fear of legal suits.

Robert Priddy’s Double Standards & Deceit Come Back To Bite Him

Robert Priddy wrote an article entitled “Sathya Sai Baba dared not sue Daily People newspaper”, in which he poorly attempted to make the argument that because the Sai Organisation did not sue the Daily People newspaper for “libel” that the stories they published must somehow be true.

On the internet, Leo Rebello has publicly claimed that Robert Priddy has AIDS, is a homosexual, is a schizophrenic and had sex with his former guru (Refs: 0102). Robert Priddy has never attempted to sue Leo Rebello for “libel”, so what must we infer from Robert Priddy’s inaction? That Leo Rebello’s accusations are true? Using the very same standards that Robert Priddy used against Sathya Sai Baba, the answer is “yes”! Robert Priddy “dared not sue” Leo Rebello for “libel” and Priddy’s inaction strongly implies that Rebello’s accusations have merit to them.

Thank you Mr. Priddles for setting the standard and implicating yourself in the process!

Ex-Devotee’s employ a entire slew of double standards and reprehensible tactics against Sathya Sai Baba, the Sai Organization, Sai Devotees and Pro-Sai Activists. However, if one were to turn the tables on Ex-Devotee’s they would be implicated in the very same reprehensible behaviors they attribute to others.

Robert Priddy is being dealt with now and as one can see, dealing with him requires no huge effort. It is obvious that Robert Priddy must sense the irremediable inferiority of his arguments and that is why he is so frenzied to create an untrue and injurious impression of those who disagree with his hate-based agendas. Perhaps the most disturbing part to Robert Priddy’s harangues is his astonishing ability to tell pathological lies with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. Robert Priddy has trained himself well in the art of rhetoric and he has apparently amazed and dazed some people with his nostril-flaring ability. Moreno remains unimpressed.

Robert Priddy – The Con Artist:

Needless to say, Robert Priddy has a long and established history of distortions, lies, defamations and libels.

Of course, none of these things are surprising considering that Robert Priddy is an LSD Advocate who is thoroughly obsessed with genital oilings and who relishes projecting his homoerotic fantasies onto Moreno. Robert Priddy is allied with Bisexual & Psychic Trance Medium Conny Larsson and Child Porn Purveyor RFJ Sandt and Perverted Fetishist Sanjay Dadlani. Robert Priddy is also a staunch promoter of New Age Advocate & Reincarnator Alan Kazlev and Guru & UFO Promoter Timothy Conway (who actually believes that Sathya Sai Baba may have molested alleged victims like aliens are alleged to do through abductions!).

The only people guilty of running “massive disinformation and cover-up campaigns” are Robert Priddy and Ex-Devotees who have attacked hundreds of Sai Devotees & Non-Devotees alike and who have created hundreds of webpages to defame, libel and smear Gerald Joe Moreno. What more can one do but laugh at loud at Robert Priddy and his hypocritical finger-pointing?

Brian Steel – Internet Propagandist Extraordinaire

Brian Steel published the following information on his official domain against Gerald Joe Moreno (a Pro-Sai Activist):

Brian Steel:
2. A list of Gerald ‘Joe’Moreno’s 16 known activist sites vigorously dedicated to discrediting and disparaging all critics of Sathya Sai Baba (2003-2008).

The beginning of the campaign
http://vishvarupa.com (c2003)
www.vishvarupa.com (pre-2004)
http://vishvarupa.com/SathyaSaiBaba/
(Miscellaneous pro-SSB blogs from ?2003 or 2004)

A marked increase in activity and ferocity followed http://www.saisathyasai.com (?2006-) His major network of denunciations and disparagement of at least 16 writers and critics

www.sai-fi.net Also a major site, with links to main official and unofficial Sathya Sai Organisation sites.

His growing labyrinth of denunciatory (free) blogs against individual critics

http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com
http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com
http:// sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com
http://dadlaninanda.blogspot.com
(Those four sites are directed at a single critic)

The other major targets so far have been:
http://barry-pittard-exposed.blogspot.com
http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com
http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com
http://tony-oclery-exposed.blogspot.com
http://om-sathya-sai-baba.blogspot.com (Especially about Dr Timothy Conway)
http://morenojoegerald.blogspot.com
and yet another general all-purpose blog at http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com

(Screencap Reference)

Brian Steel - Typical Propaganda Trash

Brian Steel - Typical Propaganda Trash


Exposing Brian Steel’s Shabby Research
About Brian Steel’s shabbily researched claims about Moreno’s websites and blogs, the following is to be noted:

  1. http://vishvarupa.com & http://www.vishvarupa.com & http://vishvarupa.com/sathyasaibaba are the exact same domain and are not different domains that were created at different times. Since Brian Steel is a deficient researcher (who even attacked Moreno’s webpage about him without having read it), he is unaware of these basic facts. Read about the WWW extension on Wikipedia. Brian Steel attempted to deceive readers into believing that Moreno’s one vishvarupa.com domain was somehow three different websites / blogs. The “sathyasaibaba” extension on Moreno’s vishvarupa domain is simply a folder that contains a blog script. The “sathyasaibaba” folder was created in 2008, not “?2003 or 2004” as falsely presumed by Brian Steel. Moreno’s first webpage pertaining to the Sai Controversy was first created in October 2004, not “c 2003, pre-2004, ?2003” as imagined by Brian Steel.
  2. Brian Steel implied something sinister because Moreno provided links to official & non-official Sai-related websites on his sai-fi.net domain. Since Moreno’s websites are specific to Sathya Sai Baba and the Sai Controversy, of course they are going to provide links to official & non-official Sai-related websites.
  3. About Moreno’s alleged “four” blogs attacking Sanjay Dadlani, it is to be noted that Brian Steel duplicated the sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com link twice. Consequently, there are three blogs about Sanjay Dadlani, not “four” as falsely alleged by Brian Steel (who apparently can’s proof-read his sloppy “research”). Despite Brian Steel’s cry-baby whining about Moreno’s three blogs about Sanjay Dadlani, Brian Steel purposely suppressed the fact that Sanjay Dadlani created three blogs attacking Moreno:
    • morenojoe.blogspot.com
    • geraldmoreno.blogspot.com
    • wikimoreno.blogspot.com

    Sanjay Dadlani also attacked Moreno on two of his other blogs and on two Yahoo groups (one of which Sanjay took over):

    • saibabaexposed.blogspot.com
    • saibabatribune.blogspot.com
    • sathyasaibabadiscussionclub (Yahoo Group)
    • sathyasaibaba2 (Yahoo Group)

    Why doesn’s Brian Steel complaint about Sanjay Dadlani’s attack blogs against Moreno? If multiple blogs are indicative of “discrediting and disparaging” others, then Ex-Devotee’s are just as guilty as Moreno.

  4. Brian Steel left out the following blogs by Moreno:
  5. Gerald Joe Moreno was forced to defend himself against Ex-Devotee’s hundreds of attack webpages against him. Ex-Devotees have similarly attacked hundreds of Sai Devotees & Non-Devotees alike. Therefore, it is easy to see why Moreno created multiple blogs defending himself. Afterall, Ex-Devotees are many whereas Moreno is one. Brian Steel failed to mention how Ex-Devotees attacked Sathya Sai Baba on hundreds of websites, domains and blogs (in multiple languages). Despite these facts, Brian Steel rather snivel about Moreno’s websites and blogs while omitting all relevant details about Ex-Devotee’s pervasive smear & gutter campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and others. What more to expect from the Australian Spanish translator and internet propagandist Brian Steel?

Kevin R D Shepherd Fails Notability Criterion On Wikipedia

On December 22nd 2009, Wikipedia gave vanity self-publisher and pseudo-philosopher Kevin R. D. Shepherd a firm slap on the face and deemed him wholly non-notable despite the fanatic and desperate blathering of:

  1. Alex Jamieson (an anonymous account who admitted having direct contact and affiliation with Kevin R. D. Shepherd and to whom Kevin R. D. Shepherd freely gave his picture’s copyrights).
  2. Simon Kidd (sockpuppet “The Communicator” and a relentless Kevin R. D. Shepherd propagandizer who tag-teamed with “Alex Jamieson” on Shepherd-related Wikipedia pages, discussions and issues).
  3. Ombudswiki (aka Brian Steel, a Sathya Sai Baba critic and vocal advocate of Kevin R. D. Shepherd). On Brian Steel’s official websites, he openly solicits, endorses and references Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Also, Kevin R. D. Shepherd cited Brian Steel as a reference in his self-published book Pointed Observations.
  4. ProEdits (aka Robert Priddy, a Sathya Sai Baba critic and vocal advocate, associate and co-conspirator with Kevin R. D. Shepherd). On Robert Priddy’s official websites and blogs, he openly solicits, endorses and references Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Also, Kevin R. D. Shepherd cited Robert Priddy as a reference in his self-published book Investigating the Sai Baba Movement.

See: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion / Kevin R. D. Shepherd.

Numerous Problems With The Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article

Numerous Problems With The Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article


Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article Deleted

Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article Deleted


It is also very amusing that Simon Kidd accused Wikipedia editors of “collusion” on the AFD for the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article (Ref). Needless to say, the only people factually shown of “colluding” were Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits).

DEC 23rd 2009 UPDATE: Simon Kidd (obviously sipping too much cuckoo juice) actually had the temerity to claim (like a conspiracist or a person afflicted with paranoia) that because this webpage was promply published when Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Wikipedia article was deleted, this MUST mean that Wikipedia editors involved with the AFD were in “collusion” with Moreno (Refs: 0102)! This is going to come as a surprise to Smartse, Dazedbythebell, Goethean, JN466, Atama, Polargeo, DGG, Fences&Windows, Collect, AEK and Kevin. None of these editors are known to Moreno and none of these editors had any sort of contact with Moreno when the AFD was filed. About Moreno, Simon Kidd said, “It seems to me that the horse is still whinnying!” If Wikipedia editors don’t know what “whinnying” sounds like, after reading Simon Kidd’s garrulous posts – they probably now have a good idea!

Relevant Comments About Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Non-Notability

The entire article is based on primary sources. I can’t find any secondary sources to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia:ACADEMIC#Criteria. Smartse (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All the books listed as bibliography are self-published. The publishers listed only publish books by Kevin Shepherd. Kevin_Shepherd#Bibliography Alex Jamieson appears to be Kevin Shepherd. Note he not only created and maintains the article about Kevin Shepherd but provided the self-made photo. [1] See his contribution history also: [2] There is a huge circularity going that appears to be self-promotion using Wikipedia. If not, then notability needs to be established in some neutral way. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This information about Kevin Shepherd found here is probelematic to say the least. I quote from it below.

Secondly, there are absolutely no online references about Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s qualifications, notability, personal information, credentials or schooling. There are also no media articles or University references to Kevin Shepherd although his books have been published as far back as 1983. The reason for this is probably because all of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s books are self-published. Kevin Shepherd’s books were published by the publisher “Citizen Initiative” (Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom), which is not listed on booktrust’s UK publishers. The only books published by “Citizen Initiative” (utilizing an advanced search on Google for “citizen initiative” + “publisher(s)” / “publishing” / “publication(s)”) are those belonging to Shepherd, Kevin. No other books have been published by “Citizen Initiative”. I contacted the University of Sheffield UK (regarding “Citizen Initiative” and Kevin Shepherd) by email and Mrs. Barringer said: “Sorry – have never heard of them and can find no trace in any lists of publishers.”

Finally, if you examine the references in the Shepherd article carefully there don’t appear to be any quotes by Kevin Shepherd from any book other than books given in the Bibliography by Kevin Shepherd. This is also true of any statement about Shepherd. Not one statement about Shepherd is quoted from a non-Shepherd third party source. Numbered references appear to be sources to consult to see the the origin of concepts explained by the Wikipedia author. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The consensus when the COI was discussed at the COIN was that Simon Kidd and Alex jamieson do not have a COI. In this discussion it is not important whether or not anyone has a COI, we are trying to determine whether on not there has been enough significant independent coverage of this author to justify their presence on Wikipedia. As of yet no such sources have been provided. I’d never heard of Meher Baba or Sathya Sai Baba before this, but it doesn’t really matter – we are just here to discuss this article. It seems worth noting that recruiting people to vote elsewhere in AfDs is forbidden, please do not do so. Blog’s aren’t considered reliable so whatever it says doesn’t matter here. Alex, if you can provide sources to demonstrate notability then please do, I’ve looked myself but can’t find anything. Smartse (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: He sounds like a bit of a crank, sending letters to people and taking their lack of response as evidence that they are untrustworthy: [3] David Lorimer did not reply to the Letter of Complaint. Over sixty SMN members were named in the CC. lists, but only one of these responded. Professor Kurt Dressler of Switzerland promptly sent a courteous acknowledgement dated 13/05/06. With that sole and honourable exception, it is evident that a detailed complaint, complete with bibliography, has no chance of evoking due consideration from the Scientific and Medical Network. I am accordingly very sceptical of their agenda…The Letter of Complaint proved [via the non-response] that the SMN has marked limits in a worldview catering for in-crowd names and subscribers, a fair number of whom are said to be Grof-oriented…

(Text in brackets is in the original.) The logic is less than compelling. I may have a slight conflict of interest, having edited articles about people that he criticizes, but it seems like he criticizes a LOT of different people. — goethean 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Above, Simon Kidd writes: *Some secondary sources have been cited – see notes 9, 10 and 11. However, it isn’t clear what these citations are suppose to be citations for. For example, the statement in the article, According to Shepherd, Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (1988) is a non-sectarian work. sends us to note 9 which reads, A book not recognized by the leading Meher Baba Centres in the UK and USA; however, scholars were not sectarian in outlook and the book has been cited in, for example: Chryssides, G., Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, Scarecrow Press (2001); Srinivas, S., In the Presence of Sai Baba: Body, City, and Memory in a Global Religious Movement, Brill (2008). Which of the two books is the source and what is it a source for? What the editor seems to be saying is that the authors of these books were non-sectarian, as exemplified by their citation of Shepherd’s book. This seems to misunderstand what a citation is. Citations are meant as published sources for checking the accuracy of a fact stated in the article. What fact in the article do these two books mentioned in the note verify? Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this does not constitute significant secondary coverage, ideally we need an article in a magazine or newspaper to show this. Smartse (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it shouldn’t take long to demonstrate notability if he is indeed notable, as I said above a link to a magazine/newspaper article that had sinifigicant coverage would suffice. Smartse (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the COI thread and the GA delist, little or nothing of the material cited to Mr Shepherd’s own publications has been deleted. In terms of demonstrating notability, some citations of Mr Shepherd’s books have indeed been added to the article: [4]. However, evidence that an author is cited by other scholars, while it reflects a certain amount of acceptance in the scholarly world, is not by itself sufficient to satisfy WP:N, which asks for sources that “address the subject directly in detail”. There are many quite eminent and widely cited scholars who do not have Wikipedia biographies devoted to them; even if Mr Shepherd were more widely cited, he would be in august company in not having a Wikipedia biography. In conclusion, and with regret, I have to say delete, unless multiple other sources can be found that cover this author “directly in detail”. —JN466 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete – The walls o’ text above seems to really turn the signal-to-noise ratio into the negative territory. I don’t much care who has a COI with what here. The article doesn’t seem to meet our inclusion guidelines, either the general guideline or for academics. My suggestion to Alex and Simon: keep it brief and to the point if you want to sway anyone in this discussion. — Atama 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete – Not notable. His work seems generally self published and searchs through google scholar clearly show that he has had very little impact so fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) I admit to not having read the vast text above so I am not rating this with any COI in mind but on a straight forward assessment of the article. Polargeo (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability is established by one thing only: the presence of reliably published sources out there, writing about the article subject. Everything else is a red herring. Without sources discussing the article subject, we cannot write an article that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is the problem that is evident in the article (a problem which, it was promised well over a month ago, would be fixed). The article is still based on Shepherd’s own books and the original research of the editors who have written it. It is not based on any reliably published third-party sources discussing Shepherd. If such sources existed, they would have been produced by now. —JN466 19:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete with respect to WP:PROF. He has 13 books in WorldCat. There are 80 WorldCat libraries holdings Psychology in science 63 for Meaning in anthropos: anthropography as an interdisciplinary science of culture and after that 45, 36, 35, 33, 32, 37, 30, 13,… .WorldCat Identities Some of them are on quite obscure topics, where only a few holdings would be expected, but the two I mentioned and some of the others are in fields where I would expect hundreds of holdings for any important book. The very close similarity in counts for some of the books is because they are vols. of his series Intercultural research series of anthropography published by Anthropographia, a publisher that has published nothing else except Shepherd’s works. I think it would be fair to call him a self-published author. In Google Scholar I find only 6 citations of his work other than by himself. Even on the web, he seems to be known only through his own postings as a critic of Ken Wilber and, separately, of Sathya Sai Baba–there are are responses to the last part–it seems from a quick look that the discussion is so unpleasant that there can be expected to be some strong opinions here. And as far as I can see, he doesn’t meet the GNG either, or WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly expect his own books to reflect his views–especially when he is his own reviewer and editor! I don’t see how that makes for WP:N. Yes, it has happened that self-published authors have become notable, but it is so extremely rare that it’ll take very good evidence from reviews and citations of them by other people. I think in the last 3 years here there have been one or two–as I recall, they were very popular fiction writers. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note. I have raised this discussion at the admin’s noticeboard here. Fences&Windows 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Userfy As the article currently fails to give reasonable grounds to make me believe he is notable (I am one who tries his best to find notability, by the way), in the hope that possibly the user may be able to find additional reliable sources which really establish notability beyond doubt. I also suggest that the massive discussions above do little to influence the actual discussion as to deletion. Collect (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete – two issues. The first is the lack of notability, which has been discussed to death in the WP:TLDR verbiage above. The second is a lack of verifiability – even his supporters cannot supply one independent source that discusses his ideas. Either of these issues is enough to induce a vote of delete; together they would seem insurmountable. — ækTalk 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

COI etc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd
I just tried to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd, and ended up having to relist after spending an hour on it. I believe more uninvolved eyes are needed on this AfD and its participants (I don’t mean Smartse, the nominator).

Kevin R.D. Shepherd is an apparently self-taught British scholar who writes self-published books on philosophy, including criticising certain groups, gurus and sects, e.g. Sathya Sai Baba. There seem to be issues with COI on both sides: some editors supporting deletion may be associated with the sects he criticises, and some editors opposing deletion may be closely associated with Shepherd or otherwise be opposed to this sect. Note that there has been arbitration in this area before: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2.

If this was a simple judgement of the WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:CREATIVE, Shepherd would undoubtedly fail. The only coverage I can find is in a book by Marianne Warren, excerpted here. His work has been cited a handful of times over the decades, certainly not enough to say he has had an impact on his field. But it is not that simple. Editors are supporting inclusion despite the apparent failure to meet notability guidelines. The arguments to keep are lengthy but weak: appeals to OTHERSTUFF, JUSTNOTABLE, IKNOWIT, GOOGLEHITS, COMMONSENSE etc. DGG’s deletion argument is a good barometer – if he agrees with deletion, there’s usually no hope for an article. And yet, I am wary of closing as delete and having this explode in my face. Maybe I should grow a pair, but here I am.

User:Dazedbythebell has linked to a blog that is critical of Shepherd, there appear to be two or three such attack blogs against Shepherd that chronicle the activities on Wikipedia to do with him, so I am concerned about off-wiki goings on. Just Google ‘kevin shepherd wikipedia’ to get an idea of the material out there. There seems to be a vendetta between Shepherd and someone called Gerald Joe Moreno.

User:Simon Kidd and User:Alex jamieson are new SPAs that wrote this bio, though Simon Kidd says they have previously used another account (which they say has been disclosed in ArbCom). Alex wrote it and Simon gave it a Good Article Review three days after his first edit. Both deny being the subject of the article. Alex jamieson took the photo of Shepherd, so must know him. Being suspicious, I note that there are behavioural similarities between these two accounts, in particular their lengthy style of writing, and I wonder whether checkuser should be used? There’s at least some tag teaming going on with the GAR.

I was perplexed by the keep ! votes from User:Ombudswiki and User:ProEdits, but ProEdits has frequently added criticism to Sathya Sai Baba, and that article was one of the first that Ombudswiki edited in 2006, so neither are neutral in this area.

Thoughts? Advice? Fences&Windows 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Reference)

COI etc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd
Resolved. AFD was closed as delete: “The result was delete. I’m deliberately closing this soon after a relist, as I see little hope of gaining a clearer consensus than already exists. The arguments for deletion are well grounded in that reliable coverage of either Shepherd or his work must have been the subject of independent, reliably published material. This has been clearly articulated, particularly by DGG, and the lack of such coverage has not been refuted. The extremely lengthy arguments to keep provide some interesting commentary, but no substantive argument that Shepherd passes any of the notability criteria. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)” –Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Reference)

Moreno’s Argument About Shepherd’s Non-Notability Is Vindicated

Kevin Shepherd wailed considerably about Joe Moreno’s objection on Wikipedia to the inclusion of a quote from Shepherd’s self-published book, “Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism”.

Andries Krugers Dagneaux (an ex-devotee and critic of Sathya Sai Baba) was the only person supporting the inclusion of the Kevin Shepherd citation in the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia Article. Jossie, Alecmconroy (a non-involved party who answered Andries Request For Comment) and Moreno (SSS108) all disagreed with Andries Krugers Dagneaux.

Wikipedia generally does not allow self-published material to be used as sources in Biographies of Living People (Refs: Self Published SourcesVerifiable SourcesBLP – Reliable Sources). Even more so when the self-published material in question makes derogatory and highly questionable hearsay allegations that have never been referenced in reliable or reputable sources (Ref: Reliable Sources). Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s book and citation fell into this category of self-published and non-notable material.

When Andries Krugers Dagneaux realized that Kevin Shepherd’s book was self-published and the citation did not comply with Wikipedia policy, Andries Krugers Dagneaux no longer sought its inclusion (Reference). Kevin R. D. Shepherd purposely ignored these facts and deflected from the issue by resorting to spin, paranoia and “cult” & “sectarian” accusations.

Moreno’s past argument about Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s non-notability has now been vindicated by multiple & independent Wikipedia editors who neutrally investigated the matter thoroughly. Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) banded together and attempted to deceive various Wikipedia editors by resorting to circumlocution and rhetoric. Needless to say, it didn’t work.

Kevin R. D. Shepherd Wasted No Time Linking To His Wikipedia Profile

Kevin R. D. Shepherd was so enamored with the idea of having a Wikipedia profile, he actually provided a picture of himself for the page and gave permission to Alex Jamieson to write about him! Almost immediately Kevin R. D. Shepherd linked to his Wikipedia profile on three of his official domains. See for yourself:

Kevin Shepherd Wasted No Time Soliciting His Wikipedia Profile


Now that Wikipedia deleted Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s profile (due to his non-notability), there is little doubt that Kevin R. D. Shepherd will soon write a foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe against Wikipedia that will invariably (and predictably) make accusations of “sectarian polemics”. Kevin Shepherd upheld Wikipedia’s views and policies when Moreno was banned on Wikipedia for exposing Mel Etitis and his Peter J. King Sockpuppet Cover-Up. Any argument that Kevin R. D. Shepherd may make against Wikipedia will ultimately compromise his former arguments against Moreno and Wikipedia!

Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Non-Notability – In Conclusion

In conclusion, the self-described “philosopher” Kevin R. D. Shepherd (who admitted he is not an academic) has been shown to be nothing more than a vanity self publisher. To Date: There have been no reliably sourced, third-party media references to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. This is an irrefutable fact that no amount of deflections, distortions or ad hominem attacks is going to change. It is Moreno’s personal opinion that Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s moralistic, puritanical, self-promoting, self-centered, self-serving, bigoted, narrow-minded, dogmatic and poorly researched views will keep him out of the Wikipedia spotlight for years to come.

Alleged Sexual Molestation Victim Of Sai Baba Comes Forward With A Shocking Revelation

Ex-Devotee’s of Sathya Sai Baba, (particularly Robert Priddy, Barry Pittard, Brian Steel, Conny Larsson, Timothy Conway, Alan Kazlez and Sanjay Dadlani) are in complete denial about the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and continue to babble incessently about “sexual abuse” despite the fact that no one has yet to file a basic police complaint, court case or public grievance in India against Sathya Sai Baba. Despite these irrefutable facts Ex-Devotees continually demand legal investigations be made against the Sathya Sai Organization although no legal complaints have ever been filed against the Sathya Sai Organization by any alleged “victim” or by any alleged “victim’s” mother or father!

Ex-Devotees laughable and ridiculous legal demands are akin to accusing a person of theft based on internet complaints, demanding that the thief be punished although there are no basic police complaints or court cases alleging theft! If anyone should have legal investigations brought against them, the legal investigations should be brought against the mothers and fathers of alleged victims who have all (without exception) ignored and dismissed the alleged molestations of their children! When parents have not sought legal action against the Sathya Sai Organization, who do Ex-Devotee’s think they are to be demanding legal action?

Alleged ‘Sexual Molestation’ Victim Claims He Was NOT Molested!

Robert C. Priddy (a caustic critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba and others) is a pathological liar of the worst order who cannot be trusted to tell the truth. The same holds true for Ex-Devotees who adamantly refuse to disassociate themselves from Robert Priddy’s malicious defamation campaigns. Robert Priddy has openly libeled Gerald Joe Moreno as being “molested sexually” by Sathya Sai Baba.

Gerald Joe Moreno (one of the alleged and so-called “sexual molestation victims” of Sathya Sai Baba) has courageously come forward and PUBLICLY DENIED that he was “molested sexually” by the Guru. At no time did Moreno ever imply or suggest that he was “molested sexually” by Sathya Sai Baba. When Ex-Devotees lie about and libel Gerald Moreno as being “molested sexually” by Sathya Sai Baba, what does this say about Ex-Devotee”s self-professed “integrity” and “crediblity”? Ex-Devotees are obviously a small and vocal group of fanatics in pathological denial who thrive on self-imagined, self-created and homoerotic conspiracy theories not rooted in fact.

The Failed Court Case Against The Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America

It is amusing to note that Robert Priddy said the following on his Anti-Baba blog:

Robert Priddy: If such a trial were to occur, the full facts and testimonials – and affidavits which are still held – would come to light, and witnesses claiming they were abused by him could then stand forth under foreign ambassadorial protection. Of course, he would have to try to prosecute those who testified against him in their own countries, which would give him and his organization media coverage they evidently cannot risk and also considerable legal difficulties.

Needless to say, such a trail was set to go to court in California in the USA via Alaya Rahm vs the Sathya Sai Baba Society of America. The end result?

  • Alaya Rahm self dismissed his own lawsuit with prejudice.
  • Not even one alleged victim was named as a witness on behalf of Alaya Rahm.
  • Not even one deposition was taken on behalf of Alaya Rahm.
  • Not even one “affidavit” was submitted into evidence on behalf of Alaya Rahm.
  • Not even one “testimonial” was submitted into evidence on behalf of Alaya Rham.

In “Response To Form Interrogatories” in Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society (Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One) Alaya Rahm fully admitted that he had been a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 – 2005. Consequently, during Alaya Rahm’s “Divine Downfall” and India Today Anti-Sai interviews and during the filming of the BBC Documentary “Secret Swami” and the “Seduced By Sai Baba” Danish Documentary, Alaya Rahm was under the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol while relating his alleged sexual encounters with Sathya Sai Baba. This crucial information wholly undermines Alaya Rahm’s credibility and irreparably compromises the integrity of his claims. Needless to say, Alaya Rahm’s alcoholism and drug addiction have been purposely suppressed from the general public by Anti-Sai Activists, the Rahm Family and the media (Ref).

Supporting Alaya Rahm’s involvement with illegal street drugs and drug addicts is a secondary court case in November 2007 where Alaya Rahm testified on behalf of his friend Valdez T Woods who was arrested and convicted for possession of crack cocaine and marijuana with the intent to deliver (PDF Reference). As a matter of fact, Valdez T Woods was arrested within a mile of Alaya Rahm’s then current residence (as revealed in official court records). Alaya Rahm was identified as a “friend and associate” of drug dealer and drug addict Valdez T Woods.

These are irrefutable facts supported by official court records. Robert Priddy, on the other hand, cannot source his arguments to any official court records or to any legal documentation whatsoever. Robert C. Priddy not only acts as a proxy spokesperson for alleged victims, he also acts as a “proxy guardian” because alleged victim’s mothers and fathers have all (without exception) failed in their moral, ethical and legal duties by ignoring the alleged molestations of their children. The reason why Robert C. Priddy does not shut up is because if he did, the silence would be deafening because no one else besides critics are making all the fuss.

Robert C. Priddy and Ex-Devotees need to shut up and let the alleged victims and their mothers and fathers talk for themselves. The fact that alleged victims and their mothers and fathers are not talking strongly suggests that Sathya Sai Baba did nothing wrong. Robert C. Priddy and Ex-Devotees should take their gripes to the parents of alleged victims and should be castigating them for ignoring their children’s alleged molestations.

Concluding Statement: Robert Priddy The Con Artist

Needless to say, LSD advocate Robert Priddy has a long and established history of distortions, lies, defamations and libels.

Of course, none of these things are surprising considering that Robert Priddy is an LSD Advocate who is thoroughly obsessed with genital oilings and who relishes projecting his homoerotic fantasies onto Moreno. Robert Priddy is allied with Bisexual & Psychic Trance Medium Conny Larsson and Child Porn Purveyor RFJ Sandt and Perverted Fetishist Sanjay Dadlani. Robert Priddy is also a staunch promoter of New Age Advocate & Reincarnator Alan Kazlev and Guru & UFO Promoter Timothy Conway (who actually believes that Sathya Sai Baba may have molested alleged victims like aliens are alleged to do through abductions!).

The only people guilty of running “massive disinformation and cover-up campaigns” are Robert Priddy and Ex-Devotees who have attacked hundreds of Sai Devotees & Non-Devotees alike and who have created hundreds of webpages to defame, libel and smear Gerald Joe Moreno. What more can one do but laugh at loud at Robert Priddy and his hypocritical finger-pointing?

Sathya Sai Baba Birthday Debate

Sanjay Dadlani recently published three blogged articles pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba’s birthday date and stated that there is conclusive proof that Sathya Sai Baba was not born on November 23rd 1926, but rather was born on October 4th 1929. As will be shown, Sanjay’s conclusive proof is not conclusive at all.

First and foremost, Sanjay’s critiques and criticisms about Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate are not unique. Sanjay heavily relied on Brian Steel‘s past research regarding this matter and re-packaged it, trying to pass it off as something new. It isn’t.

Sanjay believes that he has conclusively proven that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929 based exclusively on the following four “proofs”:

  1. One Kamalapuram school transfer certificate that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1929”.
  2. One Bukkapatnam school record that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1929”.
  3. One Uravakonda school record that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1939 (which was corrected to “October 4th 1929 33 years later by some unknown person).
  4. One quote from the book “Anyatha Saranam Nasthi” – by Smt. Vijayamma Hemchand (aka Kuppam Vijayamma), a Sai Devotee.

That’s it.

Now, let us take a look at Sanjay’s four “proofs”.

KAMALAPURAM TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DETAILS:

Transfer Certificate

Transfer Certificate

*Name of the school which the pupil is leaving: B.M. School Kamalapuram
*Name of the pupil: Ratnakaram Satyanarayana
*Date of birth as entered in the admission register: 4.10.1929 (Fourth October Nineteen Twenty Nine)
*Class or form in which the pupil was [unintelligible] at the time of leaving (in words): First Form
*Date of admission or promotion to that class or form: 11.6.40
*Date when the pupil actually left the school: 22.4.41
*Date on which application for transfer certificate was made on behalf of the pupil by the parent or guardian: 20.6.41
*Date of transfer certificate: 20.6.41

It is my contention that Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate was incorrectly recorded on the Kamalapuram school record, which was transferred to Sathya Sai Baba’s subsequent school at Bukkapatnam, and the incorrect birthdate was copied from it. Sanjay attempted to refute this contention by stating the following:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Moreno’s argument is changing with the wind! Stop talking bullshit, Moreno, LOL! The earliest (English) record is the Kamalapuram transfer form, which has the same birthdate as the Bukkapatnam record. Whaddya know? The same birthdate occurs in the Uravakonda school records. And Moreno wants us to think that these records were copied from each other at a time when it was very difficult to travel by bullock cart, let alone by foot.

Since the earliest record is a transfer certificate, this record was required to be presented to the next school in order for the admission to occur. The information on the Bukkapatnam school record was copied from the Kamalapuram transfer certificate. Sanjay poorly attempted to argue that this was not the case because “it was very difficult to travel by bullock cart, let alone by foot”. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Kamalapuram transfer certificate was required as proof that Sathya Sai Baba passed his previous schooling and qualified for promotion to the Bukkapatnam school. How else was the Bukkapatnam school to ascertain whether or not Sathya Sai Baba passed his previous schooling? Therefore, contrary to Sanjay’s claims, this record was shared between schools and information was copied from it.

BUKKAPATNAM SCHOOL RECORD DETAILS:

Full Bukkapatnam School Record

Full Bukkapatnam School Record


Click Here For The Full Image (And Text Transcription) To The Bukkapatnam School Record

The Bukkapatnam school record is extremely important because it shows:

  1. How poorly birthdates were recorded.
  2. The apathy and lack of importance given to valid birthdates.
  3. How early Indian school-records from rural villages are wholly unreliable means of ascertaining someone’s birthday.

The LIMF image to the Bukkpatnam school record shows the names to the following 16 students who were admitted in July 1941:

  1. 462 Gludappa 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  2. 463 Adeppa 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  3. 464 Gangappa 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  4. 465 Ganganna 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  5. 466 Sathyanarayana 4-10-29 (12 years old)
  6. 467 Narayana Mulu 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  7. 468 Venkatesh 1-7-33 (8 years old)
  8. 469 Nanjuda Rao 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  9. 470 Frakrodeem 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  10. 471 Modeen Sab 1-7-26 (15 years old)
  11. 472 Ranganna 1-1-30 (11 years old)
  12. 473 Narayana Ganta 1-7-25 (16 years old)
  13. 474 Venkataramulu 30-1-28 (13 years old)
  14. 475 Mohammad Peer 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  15. 476 Narayana
  16. 477 Sallappa

Only 14 of these students have their birthdates showing. As one can clearly see, 11 out of the 14 students are listed as being born on exactly July 1st. This is wholly and completely improbable. These 11 students have different last names and different fathers (therefore, none of them are brothers, twins, triplets, etc.).

Out of these 11 students: Frakrodeem, Mohammad Peer, Adeppa and Gangappa were allegedly born on July 1st 1935. Gludappa, Ganganna, Narayana Mulu and Nanjuda Rao were allegedly born on July 1st 1934. Venkatesh was allegedly born on July 1st 1933, Modeen Sab was allegedly born on July 1st 1926 and Narayana Ganta was allegedly born on July 1st 1925.

These utterly improbable birthdates (defying lottery odds many times over) prove that the Bukkpatnam school record is inaccurate and did not record valid birthdates.

Looking at the ages, we also see that we have children and teenagers all in the same 8th standard class ranging between 6 – 16 years of age! This simply is not possible. There are four 6 year olds, four 7 year olds, one 8 year old, one 11 year old, one 12 year old, one 13 year old, one 15 year old and one 16 year old. Half the class (on this school-record page) was composed of 6 and 7 year olds.

Consequently, this Bukkapatnam school record does not provide proof to conclusively support any speculation that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929. The only proof that this school record provided is proof to the apathy and lack of concern for recording valid birthdates by Indian school officials in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s in rural villages in India. The Bukkapatnam school record solidifies the perception that Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate is just as unreliable as the other birthdates listed on the school record.

Funny enough, Sanjay said:

Due to the pre-Independence situation of not keeping records correctly, is it at all surprising that that ten students share the same birthdate with differing years? Who knows whether the families of the students were not in posession of the knowledge, or whether it was down to a lazy school clerk who just rubber-stamped the papers and put them in his outbox?

That’s right:

**Who knows “whether it was down to a lazy school clerk who just rubber-stamped the papers and put them in his outbox” when it came to Sathya Sai Baba’s alleged birthdate?

**Who knows if the “pre-independence situation of not keeping records correctly” would account for an inaccurate birthdate given to Sathya Sai Baba?

Sanjay just fully conceded to the inaccuracies and significant discrepancies in the Bukkapatnam school record! Nevertheless, Sanjay flip-flopped (as he often does) and argued that this very same flawed Bukkapatnam school record indisputably recorded Sathya Sai Baba’s genuine birthdate! Sanjay’s arguments are wholly absurd and contradictory.

Sanjay also tried to pull the wool over his reader’s eyes by making the following comment about student 470, whose name is listed as “Fakrodeem Puttaparthi”. “Puttaparthi” is not a last name, but a village name. Sanjay said:

Is it really that important if Frakrodeem’s surname is ‘Puttaparthi’, the name of the village? Perhaps Frakodeem and/or his family wished to be known as in ancient times according to the land of their birth; ‘Frakrodeem of Puttaparthi’, as exists in classical literature.

Sanjay’s response is utterly preposterous. As if resorting to a “classical literature” explanation from “ancient times” is not embarassing enough, Sanjay apparently overlooked the simple fact that Frakrodeem is not from Puttaparthi. He is from Bukkapatnam. Sathya Sai Baba is the only student listed from Puttaparthi on the Bukkapatnam school record. All the other students are from Bukkapatnam, without exception. If Frakrodeem is from Puttaparthi, then one is left to wonder why his village name is listed as Bukkapatnam. Either way, the entry is incorrect. So once again, why is Frakodeem’s last name listed as “Puttaparthi” when Puttaparthi is not a last name but a village name? Why would an accurate and reliable school record make this glaring mistake and fail to correct it?

URAVAKONDA SCHOOL RECORD DETAILS:

Full Uravakonda School Record

Full Uravakonda School Record


Uravakonda School Record

Uravakonda School Record

*Student Number: 422
*Name in full: R. Satyanarayana
*House or village name: Rathanaharam
*Parent: R.P. Venkappa
*Residence: Puttaparthi
*Ocupation of parent or guardian: Teacher
*Date of admission: 1-7-43
*Date of birth: 4-10-39 (October Thirty Nine)
*Religion: Hindu
*Caste: Rajapuri
*Class on admission: III F.

As one can see, the Uravakonda school record documented Sathya Sai Baba as being born on October 4th 1939 (and even spelled it out as “October Thirty nine”). This error was left in place for 33 years before an unknown person corrected it on August 11 1976, after comparing it to other school records.

The first correction reads:

Fourth October Nineteen Tweny Nine (signature unintelligible) 11-8-76 (August 11th 1976)

The second correction reads:

Compared with the original (unintelligible) register & date of birth corrected as 4.10.1929. (p. 32 of the register regs.) (signature unintelligible) 11-8-76 (August 11th 1976)

Despite the fact that the official Uravakonda school record documented Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as being October 4th 1939 (and it stayed that way for 33 years), Sanjay had the audacity to state that the Uravakonda school record is an “independent piece of evidence that confirm Sathyanaraya Raju’s birthdate as October 4th 1929! Talk about denial, desperation and true-believer syndrome! The Uravakonda school record does not provide proof to conclusively support any speculation that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929. The only proof that the Uravakonda school record provided is a another contradictory date as to when Sathya Sai Baba was allegedly born.

VIJAYAMMA’S “ANYATHA SARANAM NASTHI” CITATION:

The following quote was cited from Vijayamma’s book to support a 1929 birthdate:

In 1945 the little girl’s cousins were strolling in the affluent Bangalore suburb of Malleswaram when they heard bhajans being sung and entered the house to listen. Sai Baba, who was present there, invited them to go to Puttaparthi (whose name they had never heard). When they returned to their town of Kuppam (south-east of Bangalore, but in today’s Andhra Pradesh), the cousins told the girl’s mother about their meeting. The latter was keen for them all to go, but the idea was vetoed by the father, who said: ‘You tell me He is sixteen years old and claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai. This is all humbug’. (p. 12)

This quote did not say anything about when Sathya Sai Baba was born. The quote indirectly implied that Sathya Sai Baba was sixteen years old in 1945. If this is true, Baba’s year of birth would be 1929.

First of all, Vijayamma’s notes were never written from a historical perspective. Although these stories were taken from Vijayamma’s notes, the above story reads as if Vijayamma was repeating a story told to her in which she was not personally involved. Therefore, these quotes do not provide any proof that Sathya Sai Baba was born in 1929. There are other devotees who indirectly claim that Baba was born in 1926. Does this mean that one can conclusively state that the majority opinion is correct? Since when is one indirect quote from a devotee’s book conclusive proof for a 1929 birthdate?

Furthermore, if Vijayamma honestly, reliably, accurately and objectively gave information that supported Sanjay’s conclusions (as he contends), then this must mean that Vijayamma also honestly, reliably, accurately and objectively related first-hand miracles that she personally experienced with Sathya Sai Baba (which even included the alleged resurrection of her own father). Nevertheless, Sanjay adamantly refuses to accept the writing of Sai Devotees (who he often bashes and trashes as “liars” on the internet) and even stated about them:

…any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt…

Therefore, Sanjay’s reference to “Anyatha Saranam Nasthi” (authored by a Sai Devotee “favorable to Sathya Sai”) needs to be taken “with a pinch of salt”.

Sanjay also said:

Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.

Since Sanjay feels this way, his reference to Vijayamma’s book cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because it talks about reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like.

Of course, this is not the first time that Sanjay flip-flopped regarding books authored by Sai Devotees. Click Here To Read My Article About Sanjay’s Acceptance Of LIMF (a book he later bashed and trashed as “bullshit”).

BRIAN STEEL’S OBSERVATION:

Brian Steel made the following observation:

As for the possible day of birth, in the school Register photostats in LIMF it is given as 4 October (1929). But maybe it WAS 23 November after all, as has been celebrated, at least since 1946 when we find the first reference in LIMF to an official birthday. It was also celebrated on 23 November in 1950, as Vijayakumari notes, with the Inauguration of Prasanthi Nilayam: “Till that day, prominence had not been given to Swami’s Birthday. But that day we prayed to Swami to permit us to celebrate it” (Vijayakumari, p. 161) (In the Discourses recorded in Sathya Sai Speaks, the first to be labelled as a Birthday Discourse is the one for 1960.)

Therefore, Sathya Sai Baba‘s November 23rd birthday was known as far back as 1946 when he was 20 years old (if born in 1926) or 17 years old (if born in 1929). Furthermore, LIMF records a first-hand account where a fellow classmate of Sathyanarayana Raju (Sai Baba) stated that Sathya was one year senior to him in school (meaning Sathya would have been born in 1926). Read the following clarification from LIMF.

LIMF’s (Love Is My Form) CLARIFICATIONS:

On pages 68 & 69 the LIMF editors stated (about Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate):

“Sathya’s date of birth in school records, however, is recorded as the 4th of October 1929 – and not the traditionally recognized date of the 23rd of November 1926. Talipineni Kesappa, son of Talipineni Ramappa maintains that Sathya was one year senior to him at school; therefore, Kesappa’s date of birth being 11th of June 1927, Sathya’s year of birth definitely is 1926. It has long been a practice in the schools to record a date of birth as being much later than the ‘actual’ date of birth – in order to facilitate career prospects. Sathya’s parents wanted Sathya to become an educated officer. This, possibly could be the reason for the discrepancy. In addition, in 1926, people in remote villages like Puttaparthi, in pre-independent India, were not very particular about dates and birth registration was done much later.”

Sanjay responded to LIMF’s explanation by saying:

Plenty of other evidences have proved the 1929 birthdate. LIMF’s ‘reason’ is bullshit, and they have made many more bullshit explanations, all of which have been discussed and dismissed in my exposé series. I personally do not care, it is a problem for devotees not for me. LOL.

Sanjay did not think LIMF was “bullshit” when he heavily relied and cited from it (admittedly) to make his pathetic “Sai Baba Shirdi Lies” series (See my responses: 010203). I would also like to see the “plenty of other evidences” which prove the 1929 birthdate. For some mysterious reason, Sanjay can only cite 3 inaccurate school records and 1 statement from a book authored by a Sai Devotee. That’s it! Where are the “plenty of other evidences” that come from neutral, non-devotee sources?

When Sanjay is trying to advance an argument against Sathya Sai Baba, he has no problem citing self-serving quotes from Sai Devotees that he considers reliable, accurate and objective. When it comes to other quotes made by these same Sai Devotees (that Sanjay considered worthy enough to reference before) Sanjay trashes and bashes them as “liars” and calls their explanations “bullshit”. Sanjay is such a wishy-washy, hypocritical and duplicitous critic, one must take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

SATHYA SAI BABA’S BIRTHDAY – IN CONCLUSION:

Since no one has been able to produce Sathya Sai Baba’s original birth-certificate (or a copy to it), there is no conclusive proof as to which date or year he was actually born. Even though Sathya Sai Baba has a passport (from his visit to Africa in 1968, which would have required legitimate documentation for a date of birth), Sanjay said he would reject it because he claimed that someone in his family has an inaccurate date of birth in his/her passport. Therefore, Sanjay will accept nothing less than the original birth certificate to accept Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as being November 23rd 1926 (and more than likely he would reject that as well).

Ironically enough, although Sanjay’s standards are extremely rigid when it comes to a 1926 date of birth, his standards are extremely flaccid when it comes to a 1929 date of birth. Just more proof that Sanjay is a self-serving hypocrite who cannot take a rational, sober, fair or consistent stance against Sathya Sai Baba.

Although many Sai Devotees have written extensively about Sathya Sai Baba’s early years, none of them ever mentioned that Baba changed his birthdate. Both Ganapathi and Kasturi had full access to Sathya Sai Baba’s parents, relatives and old devotees. Based on their early interviews with Baba’s parents, relatives and old devotees, it was ascertained that Baba was born on November 23rd 1926. Even LIMF was able to trace the earliest reference to Baba’s November 23rd birthday back to 1946.

And to put the final nail in the coffin (to Sanjay’s dead-in-the-water arguments) there are no government, official or reputable organizations, institutions, corporations, agencies or offices that accept school records as proof for one’s date of birth. Not even one!

As a matter of fact, on the Littler Mendelson Legal Corporation website, there is definitive legal information regarding birth certificates and how school records cannot be substituted for them:

Birth, Marriage, Divorce Certificates: India:
Birth Certificates:
Birth Certificates are available to any applicant born after April 1, 1970, on payment of nominal fees to the appropriate government agency. Prior to 1970, however, reporting of births was voluntary. Therefore, if you are unable to obtain a birth certificate from the appropriate government agency or if the information on the birth certificate is insufficient, alternative documents may be submitted.

Two sworn affidavits executed by parents, siblings, aunts, or uncles (blood relatives) may be presented in lieu of a birth certificate when a birth certificate is not available. The affidavits should set forth the relationship between the deponent and the applicant, the date and place of the applicants’ birth, the names of both parents and other related facts. The affidavits must be witnessed and stamped by an advocate/notary. In addition, these affidavits must be accompanied by a document from a competent governmental authority stating that the certificate did not exist or no longer exists.

NOTE: School records and “birth records” issued by a hospital or church are insufficient substitutes for birth certificates. (Reference)

Consequently, Sanjay comical citations to school records as conclusive proof (supporting an October 4th 1929 date of birth for Sathya Sai Baba) is not only absurd, it is wholly without merit or legal substantiation.

Gerald Joe Moreno And The SheilaWaring Lie

About the pseudonym “sheila waring”, Kevin Shepherd said of Moreno:

kevinrdshepherd.net/html/23___sathya_sai_baba__problems.html
“His many blogs are often registered anonymously. He has resorted to many web pseudonyms such as Equalizer, vishvarupa108, and sheilawaring.”

About the pseudonym “sheilawaring”, Psychic Medium Conny Larsson said of Moreno:

saibabaexpose.com/sheilawaring.html
“Someone using the name ‘sheila waring’ reposted Moreno’s deleted postings on Netscape on July 9 2007- very soon after they had been banned and removed by Netscape. The identity of sheilawaring was concealed, but it is not hard to understad that this was either Moreno himself, or one of his proxies – it makes no real difference. That he must have had a hand in it is beyond doubt. The links are all to his defamatory website at saisathyasai.com Here are screenshots of the pages posted by sheilawaring on Netscape, also subsequently deleted by the netscape administration.”

About the pseudonym “sheila waring”, Robert Priddy said of Moreno:

robertpriddy.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/sathyasaibaba-in-the-shadows/
“He has often avoided using his most known username (joe108) in favour of unidentifiable ones like Equalizer, sheilawaring, or – for most people less identifiable ones like visvarupa 108, SSS108 (on Wikipedia) GM, JM, GJM with or without the 108 suffix and so on All were gradually identified as being his. He has also used diverse IPs in his e-mails and comments, as has been documented on various occasions, though he tries to deny it, the proofs are there for any eventual further use. He denied he was equaliser until exposed definitively as such, and he denies that he posted on Netscape under the username sheilawaring – but he is exposed as having done that just after he had been banned under a previous pseudonym like JM108).”

Let it go on record that Gerald Joe Moreno has never (ever), at any time, used the name “sheila waring” on digg.com, netscape.com (now propeller.com) or anywhere else for that matter. Contrary to Robert Priddy’s senile claims (which he has been spewing all over his blog), Moreno never “denied” using the name “Equalizer” on his blogs. Once again, Robert Priddy makes unsupported, unsubstantiated and un-referenced claims against Moreno.

In an attempt to bolster their absurd claims that Moreno used the “sheila waring” pseudonym, several screencaps were published on Conny Larsson’s website. And thank goodness they did! After seeing the screencaps, Moreno nearly fell out of his chair laughing because Ex-Devotee’s apparently confused “sheila waring” as a Pro-Moreno Activist when in fact “sheila waring” was an Anti-Sai Activist hiding under a fake name! “Sheila Waring” went through all of Moreno’s posts on Netscape and “sunk” all of them (meaning that “sheilawaring” casted votes against all of Moreno’s articles). This is why Moreno’s articles showed up under “sheilawaring’s” Netscape history. One can clearly see the text saying “Sunk On July 09, 2007 07:49pm” below Moreno’s posts. One can also see the text that says “This story has mostly negative ratings” on top of Moreno’s posts with the number of “sinks” made against his articles. Critics used numerous fake names on Netscape to “sink” Moreno’s articles and all of their fake names were banned, including Robert Priddy, Barry Pittard and Brian Steel’s accounts.

SheilaWaring Overview

SheilaWaring Overview


The screencaps provided on Psychic Medium Conny Larsson’s website (which was referenced by True Believer Robert Priddy and others) are provided below:
SheilaWaring Lie Cap1

SheilaWaring Lie Cap1


SheilaWaring Lie Cap2

SheilaWaring Lie Cap2


SheilaWaring Lie Cap3

SheilaWaring Lie Cap3


SheilaWaring Lie Cap4

SheilaWaring Lie Cap4


That’s right, Kevin Shepherd, Conny Larsson and Robert Priddy (all claiming a “scholar” or “professional” status) are too idiotic to read posts correctly (akin to their idiotic inability to read IP headers correctly, even attributing IPs generated by their own computers to Moreno).

What a bunch of pathetic and laughable stooges and loons!

Although Ex-Devotees whine and snivel about Moreno’s alleged “pseudonyms”, one will not find a single complaint from any of them about the numerous incognito web identities used by Robert Priddy, Sanjay Dadlani, Tony O’Clery, UsedByBaba, Barbara Dent and R.F.J. Sandt. Ex-Devotees even attempted to pass themselves off as various individuals (including Pro-Sai Activists and Moreno himself). This type of very disturbing online behavior has been fully documented by Moreno (Refs: 0102).

Expect more spin, deflection and cover-ups from Ex-Devotees, who can’t even identify their own acts of subterfuge in action. Yes, this is exactly the type of shabby “research” and laughable “exposés” that Ex-Devotees typically peddle as the “irrefutable truth” to unsuspecting readers. They do the exact same thing in relation to Sathya Sai Baba as well.


Gerald Joe Moreno Archives

Gerald Joe Moreno Categories