Satya Sai Baba Archives

More On Robert C. Priddy’s LSD Advocacy

On Robert Priddy’s Anti-Baba WordPress blog, he published an article entitled “Moreno’s Wilful Deceptions About LSD And Robert Priddy” in which he openly and publicly attacked Gerald Joe Moreno as a “libeler”. Since Robert Priddy attacks Gerald Moreno on WordPress (and publishes screencaps taken from Moreno’s WordPress blog), a response is therefore necessary on WordPress. Let us take a closer look at Robert Priddy’s actual words and see if Moreno’s comments are really “libels” or not (click thumbnail to enlarge):

Some select quotes:

Robert Priddy: “The above libel is just one small example of Gerald Moreno’s fanatical personal attacks and character assassination attempts against me. I have only advocated visiting a forum where drugs are discussed, so as to obtain at least a minimum of knowledge about what their use can involve. Some entries are interesting! I have not endorsed the contents of the forum, nor do I advocate the use of LSD-25!”

Robert Priddy: “My involvement with LSD ended many decades ago, long before John Lennon’s or many other famous persons experiments or outright use of this psychedelic agent. I first took it (as provided for general experimentation by the Minister of Health, Norway) in 1963, and only repeated the experiment twice in subsequent years. I have never advocated the use of LSD! Moreno cannot prove it, and he should take much greater care in what he ‘recklessly’ asserts.”

First and foremost, Robert Priddy has been praising and eulogizing his LSD-induced hallucinations for well over 46 years. Although Robert Priddy whined that his druggy years are “outdated” and “ancient”, it is amusing to note that Robert Priddy eulogized his “outdated” and “ancient” druggy years:

1. In 1988 (25 years later) in his LSD article entitled “TRUTH, BEING AND BLISS – AN AMAZING PSYCHEDELIC EXPERIENCE – Described By Robert C. Priddy – British author & ret’d researcher and teacher in philosophy and sociology, University of Oslo, Norway”: “I try here to give as truthful an account as I can of what befell me in 1963. In the intervening 25 years I have continually been returning to that experience as as source of inspiration and in the hope that the fullest possible light may be shed on it for me.” (LSD Reference).
2. In 1994 (31 years later) in his book “Source Of The Dream”, pg: 16-7, Chapter 2: ‘When the Soil is Ready’: “A totally mind-shattering and subsequently most wonderful and intensely ecstatic experience befell me one day, as if from out of the blue. Much could be said on the subject, as it is an almost entirely misunderstood one and thus very controversial, but I do not believe doing so would appreciably enlighten anyone who has not actually had the very same experience. I am certain that no words can capture the vital nature and truth of such an experience of transcendental consciousness…” (LSD Reference).
3. In 2009 (46 years later) on his Anti-Baba WordPress blog in an article entitled “Copyright Infringement By SathyaSaiBaba”.

Therefore, Robert Priddy DID advocate for his use of LSD and continually defends his LSD-induced hallucinations as being bona-fide, true and revelatory. What message does this send to people who may want to try LSD? According to Robert Priddy, “if one is well-balanced and fortunate in the circumstances” LSD can give bona fide realizations and revelations. In Moreno’s opinion, this is LSD Advocacy, clear and simple.

Robert Priddy’s Denial: LSD-Visions Were Not Hallucinations:

On Robert Priddy’s Anti-Baba WordPress blog, he said the following about his LSD-induced hallucinations:

Robert Priddy: “On LSD-25 and alleged ‘drug-induced hallucinations’ Moreno makes false assumptions in dismissing LSD-25 experiences merely as induced hallucinations – it is very far from being so simple. Hallucinations can occur as a result of LSD, but they did not in my case. I was a student interested in psychiatry and psychology and my dose of LSD-25 was actually provided by the Norwegian Minister of Health explicitly for experimental purposes! Only one who has experienced it can have any idea at all of what inner clarity and scope of the mind may be released, if one is well-balanced and fortunate in the circumstances. In that I was in company with many well-known writers and hands-on researchers on the subject (egs. Aldous Huxley, Gerald Heard, Professor Susan Blackmore etc.) The dangers are considerable for borderline psychotics and others, so experiments are definitely not to be recommended to the public.”

In Robert Priddy’s detailed LSD articles (and in a subsequent update added by him after a Pro-Sai Activist found the LSD-related webpages), he never stated that his LSD-25 was “provided by the Norwegian Minister of Health explicitly for experimental purposes”. Robert Priddy specifically stated he first experimented with cannabis then later experimented with LSD when he was 26 years old in 1963 with his friend Eric Steadman (with whom he shared a “perfect unspoken telepathic awareness”) and the entire episode was saved on a tape-recorder he turned on.

Although Robert Priddy wrote about his LSD experiences in depth, he never mentioned anything about any University officials, volunteer testing, Karl Evang or that the LSD-25 he took was “provided by the Norwegian Minister of Health explicitly for experimental purposes”. Furthermore, Robert Priddy admitted he experimented with cannabis before he experimented with LSD in 1963, experimented with “strong bio-chemicals” and LSD years after he experimented with LSD in 1963 and even wrote about another LSD-induced hallucination in 1965. Therefore, Robert Priddy fully acknowledged he experimented with drugs prior to and after his initial LSD trip in 1963. Was Robert Priddy also using cannabis and other “strong bio-chemicals” for “experimental purposes”?

It is also significant to point out that the scientific community (contrary to Robert Priddy’s layman claims) unanimously agrees that LSD is a hallucinogenic drug and is commonly referred to as a “hallucinogen” (Refs: LSD 01 – LSD 02 – LSD 03 – LSD 04).

And let us not forget what exactly Robert Priddy claimed was revealed to him when he tripped on LSD. Robert Priddy claimed he saw (amidst lots of fluff and airy-fairy scenes) his wrist break with the bones sticking out of his flesh, compared the experience to what “schizophrenics may experience with intensity”, that his mind was ”deranged” and that his mind was “shattered into pieces again and again”. Gee, that doesn’t sound “hallucinatory” at all, does it? (sarcasm implied)

Let us take a look at the three people that Robert Priddy cited to support and defend his views on LSD:

1. Susan Blackmore: “I hope that one day soon it will be; that as a society we will prove wise enough to use LSD for its highest potential, not its worst. And for purely selfish reasons, I hope this will happen in time for me to take LSD again in my lifetime and that, like Huxley, I may be able to take it on my deathbed.” (Ref)
2. Aldous Huxley was a humanist and pacifist, and he was latterly interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology, Human Potential Movement, Vedanta and philosophical mysticism. He is also well known for advocating and taking psychedelics. Aldous Huxley took LSD on his deathbed and referred to LSD as “a mystical, religious experience”.
3. Gerald Heard was a historian, science writer, educator, LSD advocate, philosopher and friend of Aldous Huxley.

Therefore, Robert Priddy’s current views on LSD are based on the views of LSD advocates he considers as authorities on the subject!

Therefore, Robert Priddy DID advocate for his use of LSD and continually defends his LSD-induced hallucinations as being bona-fide, true and revelatory. What message does this send to people who may want to try LSD? According to Robert Priddy, “if one is well-balanced and fortunate in the circumstances” LSD can give bona fide realizations and revelations. In Moreno’s opinion, this is LSD Advocacy, clear and simple.

LSD Advocate Robert Priddy Refers Readers To A Pro-Drug Website:

Attempting to bolster the case for his experimentation with LSD, Robert Priddy posted the following link on his Anti-Baba blog:

Robert Priddy: For objective source materials and intelligent discussions of LSD-25, see this major Forum

Since “scholar” Robert Priddy (who always boasts how thorough his research is) provided a link to drugs-forum.com (and described it as being “objective” and providing “intelligent discussions of LSD-25”), he apparently researched the site thoroughly and approved of its contents.

Let us take a closer look at drugs-forum.com, a website Robert Priddy described as “objective” and providing “intelligent discussions of LSD-25”.

First and foremost, drugs-forum.com is an international Pro-Drug website where users can request and/or share information on how to take, grow, purchase, make and use all types of illegal drugs, including LSD-25 (Refs: 01 – 02 – 03 or View Entire LSD Threads). All of these LSD-related threads prove that the discussions therein are far removed from being “objective” and do not provide “intelligent discussions on LSD-25” (unless you happen to be a drug addict).

Drugs-forum.com provides numerous threads advocating for legalizing all types of drugs (Ref) and even provides threads about which drugs maximize sexual experiences (Ref). Drugs-forum.com also provides picture galleries so that users can identify hallucinogenic mushrooms, peyote, opiods, hallucinogenic cacti and hallucinogenic plants (Ref). A majority of the posts on the drugs-forum.com domain are chock full of invectives and graphic language. This is the type of Pro-Drug forum that “scholar” Robert Priddy described as being “objective” and providing “intelligent discussions on LSD-25”!

Robert Priddy revealed his drug advocacy and revealed his standards for “objectivity” and “intelligent discussion” by citing a Pro-Drug forum full of invectives that is intended for drug users!

So when Robert Priddy said “I have not endorsed the contents of the forum, nor do I advocate the use of LSD-25!”, he is lying through his teeth. Robert Priddy fully endorsed the contents of Drugs-forum.com and openly boasted that it contained “objective” information about LSD-25 and provided “intelligent discussions of LSD-25”.

After Moreno published his article about Robert Priddy’s loud endorsement of drugs-forum.com, a Pro-Drug Forum intended for drug users (which he described as containing “objective source materials and intelligent discussions of LSD-25”), Robert Priddy rushed to do damage control (just as Moreno predicted he would) and removed the link to drugs-forum.com and said:

Robert Priddy: “Please note: Having looked more closely at the web pages on LSD-25 I had first linked to here I found them partly very misleading and that there was an overall bias towards possibly dangerous viewpoints, though there was also nonetheless a good deal of accurate historical and other materials in them and/or linked to them. As a whole those pages do not represent my standpoint, therefore the link is deleted”

“Scholar” Robert Priddy (who constantly claims he conducts thorough research) argued that drugs-forum.com (a Pro-Drug Forum intended for drug users) contained “objective source materials and intelligent discussions of LSD-25”). Now, however, Robert Priddy is claiming that his initial assessment of drugs-forum.com was wrong and the website is not as “objective” or as ”intelligent” as he first assessed it to be.

Robert Priddy has yet to specifically tell us which webpages on drugs-forum.com (a Pro-Drug Forum intended for drug users) contained a “good deal of accurate historical and other materials in them and/or linked to them”?

Robert Priddy would have the world believe that LSD is simply a great “mind clearer” that produces out-of-body experiences that result in enlightenment and visions of broken bones sticking out of bloody flesh!

Let readers decide if all these facts are indicative of LSD advocacy or not.

And far be it for Robert Priddy to whine and snivel about “libels” and “fanatical personal attacks and character assassination” when he has openly resorted to screencap fraud against Gerald Moreno and has falsely and fraudulently accused Gerald Moreno of being sexually molested by Sathya Sai Baba!

UPDATE: May 27th 2010

Just one day after Robert Priddy hissed about NOT being an LSD advocate, what did he do? Robert Priddy glorified his LSD-induced hallucinations in an article he wrote about Yaani Drucker and said (click thumbnail to enlarge):

Robert Priddy: “I experienced infinity, intense sweet bliss and paranormal intuition of minds and much more when I was 26.”

Robert Priddy is clearly referring to his LSD-induced hallucinations that he had when he was 26 years old. Even 46 years later, Robert Priddy is still describing his LSD-induced hallucinations in glowing and effusive ways that are 100% indicative of his LSD advocacy. Why doesn’t Robert Priddy just state the truth of the matter and say he hallucinated on LSD and those experiences were figments of his imagination and no one should use LSD at all? Robert Priddy will not say these things because he ADVOCATES for the integrity of LSD and he ADVOCATES for the experiences he had while tripping on it.

(Reference)

DMCA Deceit By Robert C. Priddy

On Robert Priddy’s Anti-Baba WordPress blog, he published an article entitled “Moreno’s Wilful Deceptions About LSD And Robert Priddy” in which he openly and publicly attacked Gerald Joe Moreno as a “libeler”. Let us take a closer look at Robert Priddy’s actual words (click thumbnail to enlarge):

Some select quotes:

Robert Priddy: MORENO IS FORCED TO REMOVE STOLEN MATERIALS
Moreno has illegally posted copyrighted articles of mine from 1987 which I removed from the Internet, and DMCA have accepted my copyright (in contradiction to what Moreno states, knowing full well that the DMCA notice caused wordpress to make him remove those articles from wordpress.com. ‘See notice from wordpress here:-

See also here In short, yet more lying and deception by Moreno!). He compounded his illegal act by posting these articles copiously on blogspot and other sites which do not accept responsibility for copyright violations!

First and foremost, senile Robert Priddy is obviously confusing the DMCA with WordPress’ Automattic DMCA. These two DMCA’s are not quite the same. WordPress (as a free blog) simply honored Robert Priddy’s request to have his Pro-LSD articles removed from Moreno’s free WordPress blog.

Robert Priddy claimed that DMCA copyright complaints were submitted against Moreno to Google and Blogger. Robert Priddy lamented that both of his DMCA copyright complaints were ignored by Google and Blogger (proving that Moreno’s duplication of Priddy’s Pro-LSD articles is “fair use”). Needless to say, if a true copyright infringement had occurred, Moreno’s webpages would have been removed from Google search results and Robert Priddy’s copyright complaints would have been published on ChillingEffects.org (which has never happened).

Therefore, WordPress’ Automattic DMCA accepted Robert Priddy’s copyright complaints. Google & Blogger’s DMCA and Chilling Effects did NOT accept Robert Priddy’s copyright complaints. Therefore, Robert Priddy purposely distorted the truth when he said that the “DMCA” accepted his copyright complaints. They most certainly did NOT! If the DMCA truly accepted Robert Priddy’s copyright complaints, why are Moreno’s websites still indexed on Google’s search engine and why can’t Robert Priddy supply us with the link to his public DMCA copyright complaints that would have been published on ChillingEffects.org?

For example, do a Google search for “Dan Winter” (who happens to be a “lunatic fringe” Anti-Sai Activist). At the bottom of the page, it says:

“In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.”

This is what happens when legitimate DMCA copyright complaints are filed with Google. Gerald Joe Moreno clearly stated that Google & Blogger ignored Robert Priddy’s DMCA copyright complaints. Moreno never claimed that WordPress’ Automattic DMCA ignored his copyright complaints. There is a difference! Read Moreno’s articles for yourself:

1. Copyright Blathering Backfires
2. Robert Priddy’s Copyright Blathering

Robert Priddy Is A Notable Public Figure

Robert C. Priddy created his own Wikipedia page in which he solicited himself as a notable public figure in relation to Philosophy and his former Indian Guru Sri Sathya Sai Baba (whom Priddy once hailed as God Incarnate and the Avatar of the Age!).

Robert Priddy released his biographical data on a personal website hosted by a free, online hosting company in Norway (home.no.net/anir/Nos/). On this free web-hosting domain, Robert Priddy personally disclosed biographical data that included stories of his experimentation with LSD, cannabis and other mind-altering drugs. Robert Priddy deleted these public domain webpages after he defected from the Sai Movement because he obviously feared that those articles would compromise his so-called “credibility” and “integrity” (Ref).

Robert C. Priddy is now attempting to remove his relevant, unsavory, public and self-disclosed biographical data from the internet by crying “copyright infringement” although the biographical material in question was released by him into the public domain as self-disclosure. As a notable public figure, Robert Priddy’s Pro-LSD articles are public domain and are relevant to him, his life, his spiritual views and his philosophical beliefs.

Robert Priddy himself described in great detail how his LSD-induced hallucinations significantly impacted his life, his spiritual views and his philosophical beliefs. Consequently, Robert Priddy’s Pro-LSD articles are noteworthy and fall under “fair use” as this information provides grounds for critical commentaries about him and his status as a Philosopher and notable public figure. See:

1. Robert Priddy’s “The Psychedelic Experience” (or Archive 01)
2. Robert Priddy’s “Truth, Being And Bliss” (or Archive 01 – Archive 02)
3. Robert Priddy’s “A Vision Of Cosmic Energy” (or Archive 01 – Archive 02)
4. Robert Priddy – An LSD Advocate Citing A Pro-Drug Forum For Drug Users
5. Robert Priddy’s Removal Of Biographical Data From Personal Website
6. Robert Priddy’s Copyright Blathering
7. Robert Priddy Eulogized His LSD-Induced Hallucinations For 30+ years

Robert Priddy Is A Copyright Infringer

Robert Priddy gnashed his teeth and wailed considerably about “copyright infringement” and yet he purposely suppressed the fact that WordPress removed three of Moreno’s copyright protected images from his Anti-Baba WordPress blog! Robert Priddy published three versions of Moreno’s picture on his WordPress blog (robertpriddy.wordpress.com). Moreno filed a WordPress DMCA copyright complaint through automattic.com, was able to substantiate his copyrights and WordPress deleted the images:

• robertpriddy.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gjm.jpg
• robertpriddy.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/joe108.jpg
• robertpriddy.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/joe.jpg

So what does this say about Robert Priddy?

ROBERT PRIDDY IS FORCED TO REMOVE STOLEN MATERIALS
Priddy has illegally posted copyrighted pictures of mine from 2004 which I removed from the Internet, and DMCA have accepted my copyright (Robert Priddy knows full well that the DMCA notice caused wordpress to remove those pictures from wordpress.com.

Yet more lying and deception by Priddy! Priddy compounded his illegal act by posting Moreno’s pictures copiously on blogspot and other sites which do not accept responsibility for copyright violations!

Turn about is fair play, Mr Priddles!

However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Moreno succeeded in getting his copyright protected picture removed from Robert Priddy, Alan Kazlev and Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s official domains (unrelated to WordPress).

Robert Priddy published Moreno’s picture on robertpriddy.com. Moreno filed a DMCA complaint with pipedns.com, was able to substantiate his copyrights to them and Robert Priddy was required to remove the image (the image now redirects to the Anti-Baba website SaiGuru.net):

• robertpriddy.com/images/joesdetails.jpg

Robert Priddy published Moreno’s picture on saibaba-x.org.uk. Moreno filed a DMCA complaint with homepageuniverse.com, was able to substantiate his copyrights to them and the image was removed:

• saibaba-x.org.uk/Images/GeraldJoeMoreno.jpg

Snap.com also removed this image from their servers after Moreno submitted a DMCA complaint with them as well. Robert Priddy thought he could reference Moreno’s image with snap.com’s screencapture option through his sathyasaibabanews WordPress blog.

Kevin R. D. Shepherd published Moreno’s picture on three of his domains hosted on 123-REG.CO.UK. Moreno filed a DMCA complaint with 123-REG.CO.UK, was able to subtantiate his copyrights to them and the images were removed from all three domains:

• kevinrdshepherd.info/images/Moreno1web.jpg
• kevinrdshepherd.net/assets/images/moreno.jpg
• citizeninitiative.com/images/Moreno1web.jpg
• citizeninitiative.com/images/Moreno1web%20(2).jpg

M. Alan Kazlev (an associate of Priddy & Shepherd and the webmaster for khepher.net, which is hosted by addr.com) duplicated Moreno’s pictures onto his website. Moreno filed a DMCA complaint with addr.com, was able to subtantiate his copyrights to them and the images were removed:

• kheper.net/topics/gurus/Moreno.jpg
• kheper.net/topics/gurus/Moreno_t.gif

Gerald Joe Moreno also succeeded in getting the largest Anti-Baba domain on the world-wide-web shut-down for copyright infringement until the offending material was removed. See:

- SaiSathyaSai Domain Illegally Stolen By ExBaba Webmaster

Needless to say, one will not find a single complaint coming out of either side of Robert Priddy two-sided mouth about his and his associates proven acts of copyright infringement!

Even more amusing is how Robert Priddy attempted to get WordPress to remove the following two articles by Moreno (which contained no semblance of copyright infringement and which Automattic claimed were “fair use”!):

- VKN – V. K. Narasimhan – Journalist & Devotee
- ‘Lunatic Fringe’ And Kooks Among EX-Devotees Of Sathya Sai Baba

Robert Priddy is a self-serving and egotistical hypocrite who thinks he is perfectly entitled to act in ways he deems others should not!

The Interesting Case Of Kyra Kitts

Robert Priddy (the main spokesperson for the Anti-Sai Movement) has systematically trashed & bashed anyone holding superstitious, New Age, Hindu or spiritual beliefs as belonging to the “lunatic fringe seen in cults, ashrams and religious movements”. Robert Priddy has attacked psychics and channelers as “absurd charlatans” and has ridiculed various groups of people for believing in miracles, gurus, astrology and the Ramayana. Despite Robert Priddy’s foaming-at-the-mouth attacks against these “lunatic fringe” believers, Robert Priddy promotes, endorses and/or professes friendship with:

1. Trance Channeler & Self-Proclaimed Prophet Conny Larsson
2. Guru Promoter, UFO Conspiracist & True Believer PhD Timothy Conway
3. New Age Advocate & Reincarnator Alan Kazlev
4. Self-Proclaimed Spiritual Master ‘Ramana Baba’
5. Psychic Medium JZ Knight & Ramtha Devotee Ullrich Zimmermann
6. Fetishist & Hare Krsna Congregational Member Sanjay Dadlani
7. Reiki Master And Spiritual Healer Yaman Konuralp

As a matter of fact, when Robert Priddy attempts to defend himself against Gerald Joe Moreno (a Pro-Sai Activist) he directs his readers to either:

1. Psychic Trance Medium Conny Larsson’s website (located at saibabaexpose.com)
2. Reincarnator, New Age Advocate and Grungy Integral Philosopher Alan Kazlev’s website (located at kheper.net)

How’s that for “scientific” or “rational”? Robert Priddy is obviously a very gullible and naive “true believer” who is willing to give credence to non-scientific beliefs by claiming that trance mediums, self-proclaimed prophets, aura readers, seance conductors, New Age advocates, guru adherents, self-proclaimed reincarnators and the like are intelligent, honest, credible and reliable individuals worthy of being referenced by him (a so-called “scholar” and “academic” not given to lunatic fringe or superstitious beliefs)! However, if Sai Devotees profess belief in these same things, Robert Priddy labels them as being brainwashed, gullible, mentally unsound and belonging to the “lunatic fringe” (Priddy’s favorite slur).

This brings us to Kyra Kitts and her “lunatic fringe” claims to being a clairvoyant and a psychic healer. Kyra Kitts (an Ex-Devotee of Sathya Sai Baba residing in San Luis Obispo) 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. She claimed to have been “overtly psychic since approximately age eleven”. Kyra Kitts 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 she visited Sai Baba in India, she was tormented with “bizarre sexual thoughts”, even in Baba’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. Kyra Kitts is a believer in gurus, psychic powers, ESP, siddhis, telepathy, clairvoyance, clairaudience, channeling, precognition, etc. Kyra Kitts is married to Christopher ‘Chris’ Kitts and complained on the Narcissistic Personality Disorder Yahoo Group about Chris’ domineering mother! Kyra Kitts served as the main contact for the “Bodhi Path” Buddha Center in San Luis Obispo. Kyra Kitts also used the internet pseudonym “mireille108” and claimed that Ammachi is her “core Guru”.

• (Picture Link) Kyra Kitts

Does Kyra Kitts belong to the “lunatic fringe” seen in cults, ashrams and new religious movements? According to Robert Priddy (the main writer for “JuST” and the main spokesperson for the Anti-Sai Movement) the answer is “yes”. Robert Priddy also believes that self-professed psychics like Kyra Kitts are “absurd charlatans”!

Consequently, one is left to wonder why Robert Priddy heavily relies on the support of “lunatic fringe” believers for his crusade against Sathya Sai Baba? Why isn’t the scientific community following Robert Priddy? Probably because Robert Priddy was a “lunatic fringe” believer in Sathya Sai Baba for 17 – 26 years and formerly professed belief in elementals, elves, fairies, mediums, leprechauns, UFOs and demons (Reference).

These are the type of laughable fools attempting to “expose” Sathya Sai Baba. Perhaps Robert Priddy can get Kyra Kitts to harness her vast psychic powers to aid his cause?

The Interesting Case Of Dhyani Jo Sinclair

On the Bogus “Sai Petition”, Dhyani Jo Sinclair publicly claimed she served as a secretary for a Sai Center in Canada and was a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba from 1995 – 2000. Dhyani Jo Sinclair has subsequently defected from the Sai Movement and has publicly lent her support to several Anti-Baba articles written under the “JuST Group (Just Seekers of Truth Group)” heading (including the blatantly dishonest article about the Prashanti Council).

Dhyani Jo Sinclair has adamantly refused to say one word about Sanjay Dadlani, Tony O’Clery, Robert Priddy, Basava Premanand, Conny Larsson, Reineir Van Der Sandt, Barbara Dent, UsedByBaba and Alan Kazlev’s falsified and fraudulent sexual abuse allegations against Gerald Joe Moreno (a Pro-Sai Activist). Dhyani Jo Sinclair’s absolute silence regarding these malicious libels has strongly called into question her so-called “integrity”, “credibility” and “honesty”.

Robert Priddy (the main spokesperson for the Anti-Sai Movement and for “JuST”) has systematically trashed & bashed anyone holding superstitious, New Age, Hindu or spiritual beliefs as belonging to the “lunatic fringe seen in cults, ashrams and religious movements”. Robert Priddy has attacked psychics and channelers as “absurd charlatans” and has ridiculed various groups of people for believing in miracles, gurus, astrology and the Ramayana. Despite Robert Priddy’s foaming-at-the-mouth attacks against these “lunatic fringe” believers, Robert Priddy promotes, endorses and/or professes friendship with:

1. Trance Channeler & Self-Proclaimed Prophet Conny Larsson
2. Guru Promoter, UFO Conspiracist & True Believer PhD Timothy Conway
3. New Age Advocate & Reincarnator Alan Kazlev
4. Self-Proclaimed Spiritual Master ‘Ramana Baba’
5. Psychic Medium JZ Knight & Ramtha Devotee Ullrich Zimmermann
6. Fetishist & Hare Krsna Congregational Member Sanjay Dadlani
7. Reiki Master And Spiritual Healer Yaman Konuralp

As a matter of fact, when Robert Priddy attempts to defend himself against Gerald Joe Moreno (a Pro-Sai Activist) he directs his readers to either:

1. Psychic Trance Medium Conny Larsson’s website (located at saibabaexpose.com)
2. Reincarnator, New Age Advocate and Grungy Integral Philosopher Alan Kazlev’s website (located at kheper.net)

How’s that for “scientific” or “rational”? Robert Priddy is obviously a very gullible and naive “true believer” who is willing to give credence to non-scientific beliefs by claiming that trance mediums, self-proclaimed prophets, aura readers, seance conductors, New Age advocates, guru adherents, self-proclaimed reincarnators and the like are intelligent, honest, credible and reliable individuals worthy of being referenced by him (a so-called “scholar” and “academic” not given to lunatic fringe or superstitious beliefs)! However, if Sai Devotees profess belief in these same things, Robert Priddy labels them as being brainwashed, gullible, mentally unsound and belonging to the “lunatic fringe” (Priddy’s favorite slur).

This brings us to Dhyani Jo Sinclair and her “lunatic fringe” beliefs in the Ashtar Command (which believes in UFOs, Aliens, channelers and spirit “walk-ins”) and in Pyramid Power. See for yourself:

• (Picture Link) Dhyani Jo Sinclair & Pyramid Power
• (Picture Link) Dhyani Jo Sinclair & The Ashtar Command

Does Dhyani Jo Sinclair belong to the “lunatic fringe” seen in cults, ashrams and new religious movements? According to Robert Priddy (the main writer for “JuST” and the main spokesperson for the Anti-Sai Movement) the answer is “yes”.

Consequently, one is left to wonder why Robert Priddy heavily relies on the support of “lunatic fringe” believers for his crusade against Sathya Sai Baba? Why isn’t the scientific community following Robert Priddy? Probably because Robert Priddy was a “lunatic fringe” believer in Sathya Sai Baba for 17 – 26 years and formerly professed belief in elementals, elves, fairies, mediums, leprechauns, UFOs and demons (Reference).

These are the type of laughable fools attempting to “expose” Sathya Sai Baba. Perhaps Robert Priddy can get Dhyani Jo Sinclair to harness some pyramid power for him or get the UFO Ashtar Command involved to aid his cause?

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.

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: 01 – 02)! 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 ॐ 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頭 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 Sources – Verifiable Sources – BLP – 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:

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.

Truth Prevails: Anti-Baba Video Withdrawn By Channel Nine MSN

Within 48 hours of Gerald Joe Moreno (a Pro-Sai Activist) sending Channel Nine MSN a scathing response to their biased and poorly researched Anti-Baba broadcast, the video was promptly withdrawn from their official website.

About the withdrawal of the Anti-Baba Channel Nine MSN video, Robert Priddy (a caustic defamer and critic of Sathya Sai Baba) said on his Anti-Baba WordPress blog:

robertpriddy.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/proxy-defender-of-sai-baba-and-swara
Robert Priddy: NOTE: A reliable source from within the media has confirmed that Channel NineMSN withdrew the presence of its ‘Infiltrating a cult’ segment because the Sathya Sathya Sai cult threats of legal action. Media around the world, including SBS and The Age in Australia have refused to be intimidated by the powerful Sathya Sai Organisation. We will not be intimidated and continue to make available the footage!

Needless to say, a large & national news broadcasting company such as Channel Nine MSN (which is far larger and more viewed than SBS or The Age) would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video.

It is also important to note that if Channel 9 MSN was truly threatened with legal action, they (and their world-class legal reps) would not have discussed this information with (or divulged this information to) any casual outsider. This type of legal information (if true) would only have come from someone within the NineMSN company, thus proving (once again) that NineMSN A Current Affair was directly involved with Anti-Baba Critics, contrary to Robert Priddy’s claims that they were not.

Thank you Mr. Priddles for yet another confirmation of behind-the-scenes scheming and subterfuge between NineMSN A Current Affair and Ex-Devotees.

Also see:
- NineMSN A Current Affair Australia, Moiya O’Brien, SWARA, The Sathya Sai Organisation And Cult Accusations

Kevin R.D. Shepherd And ‘The Guardian’ Article About Sai Baba

Further strengthening the case that Kevin R.D. Shepherd is a biased and shabby writer with remedial researching skills is the fact that Kevin R. D. Shepherd referenced a poorly written article by Paul Lewis in The Guardian UK Newspaper entitled The Indian Living God, The Paedophilia Claims And The Duke Of Edinburgh Awards. Oddly enough, Kevin Shepherd made no mention to the Anti-Sai Activist Sanjay Kishore Dadlani who publicly boasted on a QuickTopic forum that The Guardian article was the direct result of collaboration between himself, Anti-Sai Activists and Paul Lewis. Paul Lewis’ biased Anti-Sai newspaper article was in planning for six months. Here are Sanjay’s comments fully acknowledging that the newspaper article against Sathya Sai Baba was a premeditated, concerted and deliberate Anti-Sai-Baba hack job:

Sanjay Dadlani: “Want to talk about blindness? I warned you fools about this months ago, but you’re way too thick to pick up the hints. I even warned you months in advance about the BBC movie, and you were too thick to pick up the hints about that too. Nothing has changed even two years later. :-)” (Reference)

Indeed, on April 24th 2006, Sanjay Kishore Dadlani specifically gave a warning about a coming Anti-Sai exposure in November regarding the UK Sai Youth Group traveling to Puttaparthi and sexual abuse claims. On the SSB2 Yahoo Group, Sanjay said:

Sanjay Dadlani: “Sai Baba, male-rapist extraordinaire, has been drooling for TWO YEARS expecting the entire UK Youth contingent to travel to Puttaparthi and satisfy his perverted sexual cravings. It’s all going down this November. Details to follow” (Reference).

Just as Sanjay Dadlani predicted, come November (six months later), Paul Lewis published an article in The Guardian newspaper about (you guessed it) the UK Sai Youth Group traveling to Puttaparthi and sexual abuse claims. Coincidence? I think not.

More admissions from Sanjay Dadlani on QuickTopic:

Sanjay Dadlani: “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 pf 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…How did you like the distractions, Moreno? Sorry I couldn’t take part while I was busy participating in this development…We run the Exposé and the Exposé continues.” (Reference)

Sanjay Dadlani: “WE run the Exposé and the Exposé continues!” (Reference)

Sanjay Dadlani: “And yes, I know all about what has gone on behind the scenes. This is the stuff I am working on while you idiots are arguing endlessly over who’s a bigger pervert than who when the biggest pervert of all (Sai Baba) has just been exposed today (Saturday 4th November 2006) in a very nice Page 3 spread in a highbrow British newspaper like The Guardian. Of course, I already know which page it’s on even though I don’t have it yet. In a few hours I’ll go out and purchase a hard copy. :-)” (Reference)

Perhaps the reason why Kevin Shepherd never mentioned Sanjay Dadlani is because Sanjay is a proven pervert and defamer of others. Anti-Sai Activists (including Shepherd’s friend and co-conspirator Robert Priddy) see absolutely nothing wrong with Sanjay Dadlani’s homosexual-fantasizing slurs, Jesus Sex Fetish and Boot Sex Fetish. Although Sanjay went around secretly stalking innocent women (calling them “bitches” and “sluts”, saying “they want it”, calling Mothers “MILFs”, photographing females and teenagers up their dresses and under tables and publishing these photos on his streetbitches blog), Anti-Sai Activists and Robert Priddy are right there holding hands with Sanjay Dadlani, promoting and endorsing him on their Anti-Sai blogs and websites.

Sanjay even posted on the QuickTopic Forum (using multiple fake names, including female names) and made disgusting comments under the name “Marquis de Sade”, even duplicating a post about a Priest ejaculating on the face of a little girl, as related by her brother. Sanjay even posted under the name “kick his head in” and said that someone should murder Sathya Sai Baba (of course, this is the same guy who rejoiced when a Sai Baba temple was bombed).

These are the type of people that Anti-Sai Activists utilize to further their smear and hate campaigns against Sai Baba. Don’t expect Kevin R.D. Shepherd (a staunch moralist and purist) to mention these facts.

Although Kevin Shepherd correctly cited The Guardian when it accurately reported that Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime, he attempted to whitewash the issue by claiming without proof that there is uncritical “support for the guru in India, where socially prominent devotees staunchly uphold his claims to divine status”. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Once again, alleged victims have never attempted to file a basic police complaint against Sathya Sai Baba in India, let alone a court case. Therefore, the fact that Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime is the direct result of the apathy and non-credibility of alleged victims (who refused the offer of free “world-class legal resources” to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice).

In The Guardian article, Paul Lewis (despite researching the subject for six months) gave an incorrect age for Sathya Sai Baba and misrepresented the former US State Department warning in the exact manner as Kevin Shepherd and Anti-Sai Activists have done. See Kevin Shepherd And The US State Department.

Read the full story:
- SATHYA SAI BABA BRITISH CONTROVERSY | THE GUARDIAN UK | BIASED JOURNALIST PAUL LEWIS | DUKE OF EDINBURGH AWARDS

Robert C. Priddy – Internet Propagandist Extraordinaire

Robert Priddy (a laughable critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba) wants nothing more than to smear anyone who doesn’t agree with him with a torrent of vitriol and vilification, hence his monomaniacal, neurotic and almost daily insistence on the importance of his fork-tongued & loose methods of explanation and interpretation regarding the Sai Controversy. The following links provide referenced and verifiable information that exposes the tip of Robert Priddy’s colossal B-15 iceberg of lies, propaganda and defamations that make him wholly and utterly non-credible. Here is the truth about Robert Crichton Priddy, husband to Reidun Priddy (also an Anti-Baba Activist), father to Kai Nicolai Priddy and resident in Oslo, Norway.

Robert Priddy Shamelessly Glorifying LSD For 46+ Years:
- Robert Priddy’s “A Vision Of Cosmic Energy” (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy’s “Truth, Being And Bliss” (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy’s “The Psychedelic Experience” (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy Cites A Pro-Drug Forum Intended For Drug Users
- Robert Priddy’s Drug Years – An Overview (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy Removing Biographical Data
- Robert Priddy’s Copyright Blathering

$1,000,000 Legal Threat Against Robert Priddy:
- Defamation Legal Threat Sent Robert Priddy Packing

Fighting Robert Priddy’s Smears
- The Laughable Sheila Waring Lie
- Does Robert Priddy Have AIDS?
- Dirty Old Man Robert Priddy
- Fundamentalist Christian Label
- Robert Priddy’s Lies Spiral Out Of Control
- Defense Of The Sai Organization
- Public Pictures And Swami Premananda
- Sai Petition And SaiSathyaSai Server
- Pervert Priddy Fantasizes Molestation
- Copyright Blathering Backfires
- Priddy’s Htaccess Spin
- Second Coming Ignorance
- Screencap Fraud Against Gerald Joe Moreno

Articles About Sathya Sai Baba Critic: Robert C. Priddy
- Robert Priddy – A Time Line
- Priddy’s Primary Webpage Indexed On Porn Sites (or Archive)
- Is Robert Priddy Well Funded?
- Robert Priddy’s Pro/Anti Sai Baba Books (or Archive)
- Priddy’s Disreputable Air-Signaller Training (or Archive)
- Source Of The Homoerotic Dreams?
- Robert Priddy’s Moon Madness
- Robert Priddy And The saibaba.org.uk Domain
- Robert Priddy’s Man In The Moon
- To Be Or Not To Be Anonymous
- Robert Priddy – The Hinduism Basher
- Robert Priddy’s “Transvestite” Guru
- Robert Priddy’s Perverted Friends
- NitwitNastik And Robert Priddy
- Robert Priddy – A Supporter Of Idi Amin?
- SathyaSaiBabaNews WordPress Blog
- Proxy Defender Of Sai Isa And Barry Pittard
- Royal Liberty School Reunion 2003
- Robert Priddy – The Grinch
- Swami Ambikananda Lambasted Robert Priddy

Robert Priddy – The Gullible Pseudo-Skeptic
- The Wax Lingam MIRACLE!
- Robert Priddy’s Guru Foot Fetish
- Robert Priddy – The True Believer
- Robert Priddy’s Telepathic Claims
- Priddy’s Psychic Friend Conny Larsson
- Robert Priddy’s Gullible / Brainwashed Years
- Erik Yaman Konuralp
- Robert Priddy vs Richard Dawkins

Examples Of Robert Priddy’s Blatant Lies
- Typical Robert Priddy “Evidence” Trash
- Robert Priddy’s Penultimate Lie
- Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson & Robert Priddy
- Pre-Senility Or Just Blatantly Inaccurate
- Robert Priddy’s Fraudulent Information (or Archive)
- Materialized Green Diamond Rings? (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy’s Penchant For Prevarication (or Archive)
- Bogus “Photographic Evidence” Claim (or Archive)
- David Bailey? Really? (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy And His “Babafan” Lie (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy’s Phony “Phone” Lies (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy Lies Again About Joe Moreno
- Robert Priddy’s Personal Invites To Prashanti
- Priddy’s Shameless Lie About Joy Thomas (or Archive)
- Sathya Sai Baba Devotee For 17-26 Years

Robert Priddy’s Pseudo-Moralism:
- Robert Priddy – The Pseudo-Moralist
- Pseudo-Moralist Robert Priddy

Robert Priddy & Kai Nicolai Priddy:
- Robert & Kai Nicolai Priddy (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy’s Son Was Into Kink

Robert Priddy & VK Narasimhan:
- V.K. Narasimhan And Sathya Sai Baba
- VKN – VK Narasimhan

Robert Priddy’s Wikipedia Blunders:
- Robert Priddy Sticks His Foot In His Mouth Again (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy Literally Stumbles Onto The Scene
- Say What? (or Archive)
- Another Not So Priddy Lie Exposed (or Archive)
- Another Spiteful & Erroneous Lie (or Archive)
- Robert Priddy Lies About Lisa De Witt (or Archive)
- A Funny And Embarrassing Wikipedia Blunder (or Archive)
- Another Example Of Priddy’s Poor Research (or Archive)

Defamatory Attacks Against Moreno Addressed:
- Defamatory Attack One: Response 1 (or Archive)
- Defamatory Attack Two: Response 2 (or Archive)
- Defamatory Attack Three: Response 3 (or Archive)

Robert Priddy On QuickTopic:
- QuickTopic Deception By Robert Priddy, A Critic Of Sathya Sai Baba

Sathya Sai Baba & Amma Updates

Sathya Sai Baba – Recent Events

• President Of India Visits Sathya Sai Baba At Prasanthi Nilayam
• Sunil Manohar Gavaskar Celebrates 60th Birthday At Sathya Sai Baba Ashram – News 1
• Sunil Manohar Gavaskar Celebrates 60th Birthday At Sathya Sai Baba Ashram – News 2
• RadioSai – Prashanti Synopsis
• Sri Sathya Sai Books & Publications Trust – Updates
• Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prashanti Nilayam
• SaiCast – Streaming Videos
• Sai Yuvak – The Sai Youth Of India

Sathya Sai Baba Controversy:

• UPDATED: Sathya Sai “Sex Scandal” MYTH
• UPDATED: Robert Priddy Exposed (blog)
• UPDATED: Barry Pittard Exposed (blog)
• UPDATED: Timothy Conway Exposed (blog)
• UPDATED: Conny Larsson Exposed (blog)
• UPDATED: Kevin RD Shepherd Exposed (blog)
• UPDATED: Reinier Van Der Sandt Exposed (blog)
• UPDATED: Sathya Sai Baba On Wikipedia

Critics Of Mata Amritanandamayi Exposed:

• Cult Of The Hugging Saint Exposed – Archive
• Stephanie Brail – Critic Of Ammachi
• Jovan Jones – Critic Of Ammachi
• COTHSEE On The Attack
• Michelle Walsh – Critic Of Ammachi
• Michelle Walsh Ref – Psychic Medium
• Michelle Walsh Ref – Past Praise Of Amma
• Cult Of The Hugging Saint Website Deleted & Rebuilt
• Bronte Baxter – Critic Of Ammachi
• Jody Radzik – Critic Of Ammachi
• Anti-Ammachi Guruphiliac
• Guruphiliac Jody Radzik – A Pervert For Kali
• MandrakeGhost Archive
• Mandrake Ghost & Michelle Walsh

Second Coming Of Semantics VS Second Coming Of Jesus Christ aka Parousia aka Advent
continue reading…