dabcult:

Please stay tightly focused on the topic of this thread, which is Swami G.

Perhaps you haven't read through all of the posts here, only seeing a limited few. All of the concerns have been laid out in detail:



1. She now requires renunciation for any that want her guidance, having changed that from the years past. For those that do not want to take renunciate vows, they are sent to the "does not want realization group", lead by students. She herself was married at the time of her alleged "realization", having taken renunciate vows only after said "realization" and getting divorced.

2. She draws disability from the United States Verteran's Affairs for PTSD, as a result of sexual assault incurred while enlisted. This is not a problem, except she currently receives treatment, medication and tells those officials / doctors / the US VA that "no one is here" to continue drawing the disability while working as a "guru" and a "counselor".

3. She will not allow those in her groups to seek their own psychological counseling outside of her group; if they do, they are asked to leave.

4. She herself is on medication for the PTSD, but belittles those that may consider taking meds to deal with their own psychological issues / tramaus.

5. She once treated a student, in her home, to wean him off his own meds (without a license of any sort) while continuing to take her own meds. That student has since left the path.

6. She has no education, training, diploma, certificate or licensing to act as a "counselor / drug addiction specialist / life coach".

7. If somone takes to sharing their concerns about her and her behavior, she readily, admittedly, and by example shares their private information gleaned while in her groups, in one-to-one interaction, through her counseling in the public areana (YouTubes, Facebook, her groups, with her inner circle).

8. She claims she can share that personal information because no one signed a "confidentiality agreement".

9. She had many health problems (diabetes, etc) as a result of overeating / obesity and, because diet wouldn't work (she admitted: "If it's in front of me, I'll eat it."), she required gastric bypass surgery. A former student and his family bought and paid for the surgery and the medical expenses. Her comment to her students at the time was: "If you want this guru to be around for a while, then I need to have this surgery."

10. She uses one student as her primary means to support her lavish lifestyle, aside from her disability payments. This includes Rolex watches, business ventures, jewelry, cars, motorcycles, houses, etc.

11. She claims she allows criticisms, yet for any that atttempt to bring up concerns about her behavior / actions are met with condemnation ("You will suffer grave karmic consequences for criticizing the guru.", "You are in a hell realm.", "You will lose all Grace", etc, etc), doing so in front of her students, in public and even using the person's private info as a source of weapons against them.


There are more examples. If you are truly interested, you will have to read through the thread. While you can say my speaking out is an act of anger and revenge, how would you classify her behavior of doing the same to me once I took to this board to share? The same? Or different?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2013 02:44AM by diddly.

[Moderator note: Dabcult was subsequently banned from this thread for rule violations and his posts were deleted.]

Quote
dabcult
ULTIMATELY WE ALL HAVE TO BE IN CONTROL OF OUR OWN STATE OF MIND

But we're not. As much as you might like to think we are, we're not. If we were, thought reform could not exist. Statements like this make me wonder whether you actually believe it does.

Quote
dabcult
[Buddah] PUT IT ALL BACK ON PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY

I could give a damn what some centuries old dead likely cult leader has to say, or how you interpret it. Personal responsibility does not mean "total responsibility" as you seem to think it does. It is no way reasonable to say that people need to be subject matter experts in everything, and if they aren't, and they get taken advantage of, it's their fault. If a con artist comes along, plays some new trick i've never seen or heard of, and cons me out of my money, in your mind, I would be responsible. I should have done me "research". All those taken advantage by Madoff were responsible. He shouldn't even be prosecuted I almost imagine you'd argue. Because they should have known better. They let him take advantage. You're implying victims don't exist at all which smacks of either human potential never washed off, or somebody who takes advantage of others and wants to justify it to himself. But the moderator is right. I suggest we drop it or take it to another thread in a more appropriate forum.

Diddly,

You say she is on medication for PTSD, for which she must see a psychiatrist. Yet she forbids others from doing the same. How does she explain these contradictions to her followers? Does she even attempt to, or does she just smack people down if they ask questions? I apologize if you already answered the question earlier but I haven't finished reading all 28 pages yet.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2013 08:25PM by rrmoderator.

"You say she is on medication for PTSD, for which she must see a psychiatrist. Yet she forbids others from doing the same. How does she explain these contradictions to her followers? Does she even attempt to, or does she just smack people down if they ask questions? I apologize if you already answered the question earlier but I haven't finished reading all 28 pages yet."

For the most part people don't question it. If it ever is questioned (anything in general about her contradictions, hypocrisy, behavior or actions), you pretty quickly learn to keep your mouth shut. For sure she has to meet with some sort of medical doctor at some sort of interval to continue qualifying for the disability and get the meds, but what type of specialist that is and what the frequency is I can't say.

It should also be noted that the person she treated in her home (taking him off his psych meds) left her group shortly after. Most, if not all, of what I mention in these threads he too spoke out about. She shared some of his personal information in her groups in an effort to discredit him and send him away as "crazy". It's a long used tactic that people in her group, if they were honest about it, are all too familiar with. It also speaks to why people are so hestitant to share and question, as they know the outcome of what happens if they were to.

How many people have left the group so far? How many out of those have chosen to speak out? I imagine it's not many, especially if she's prone to "out" people. I'm aware there is a tort for public revelation of private facts as well as other similar torts which might apply. She might be claiming that she can do whatever you want with your private information you gave her under the expectation of privacy, but I'm not so sure. You might consider consulting a lawyer familiar with first amendment matters about this if you haven't already done so. Has she ever been sued before? It's certain the case wouldn't be easy to win, but if she has done this sort of thing publicly enough, and enough people are willing to speak out, it might improve your chances.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2013 03:44AM by psyborgue.

Diddly,

I'm currently on page 15, and i'm reading this:

Quote
corboy quoting Swami G from asram-annex.com
Any taking Diksha SHOULD be sending in Monthly Donations as a way of honoring what is being given by Guru and as a way to aide in keeping a Community in place... Every spiritual tradition has this admonition of paying tithes - most say 10 % of your salary but here there is simply the admonition to give what you can... Look at what you have and then make a commitment as to what is appropriate... This aides in not taking things for granted and for keeping the flow in place....

Earlier in the thread, a poster claimed that the figure was significantly less than this (he claimed one tenth of a percentage per month). What is the correct figure? How much on average do people pay that you know about?

@ Dabcult: I already responded to your "list question" on Page 28 after the first time you asked.

@ Psyborgue: She has had hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of students that have come and gone along the years (she's been at this for 12-14 years (?)). Most that go don't stay long, usually quietly making their way out. Many that have left have done so under great upheaval (similar to mine, though not taken outside the groups), while some have gone without incident: quietly thanking everyone and going on their way. Yes, she's got a long list of students she has treated poorly in the past. There are 3 students left that have been there longer than me. There are less than 25-30 that remain.

I'm not sure how much people donate monthly to her. I gave $100/month once the monthly donation program began. I also paid for her counseling ($400), plus the gifts of appreciation at various times during the years (birthday, Christmas, Guru Purnima) and the costs of the yearly / bi-yearly retreats.

[Moderator note: Dabcult was subsequently banned from this thread for rule violations and his posts were deleted.]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2013 08:26PM by rrmoderator.

Moderator -

You earlier suggested that I was "bashing" Holly, when I really wasn't (not even close) and instead was praising and defending her (the opposite of bashing). But now you allow multiple posts by dabcult, who seems to be outright blaming Holly for her own victimization and almost taunting her. Not quite sure I understand your approach to moderation. Perhaps you've not focused on what dabcult has been writing. (It's quite concerning, as Psyborgue points out.)

And Psyborgue, you are right about the privacy invasion tort -- public disclosure of private facts. Frankly, I was thinking about that very tort as I was seeing Swami G's attacks against Holly unfold. Holly certainly has an expectation of privacy, there was a confidential counseling relationship, no newsworthiness to the disclosure, etc., etc. Seems pretty slam dunk to me. And then there's the intentional inflection of emotional distress tort. Swami G appears to think that the absence of a signed confidentiality contract gives her carte blanche. She is quite seriously mistaken.

It seems that most of her students are fairly well educated and, i'm assuming, fairly well off as a result. Would it be accurate to say that Swami G seeks out those with money? In other words, how is recruiting handled in her group? Are members are encouraged refer their friends and such? Are they given criteria to look for in recruits?

Many are well educated, though its a diverse group of people. Some are even still in college. Their financial situations, given the variety of peoples, are a wide range.

I've never seen her target based on money, though one student she keeps fairly close to her has quite a bit and pays out more than "donation / gifts", as listed in various parts of this thread. She also had her gastric bypass surgery paid for by a former student that was a doctor, so he had the financial means.

She tried hard to get her students to start their own meditation groups in their communities, but it never took off the ground (she's a hard teacher to "sell" to someone, given her demeanor and what she expects in way of utter devotion). There have been some referrals in the group, but the vast majority seem to stumble across her via the web (her website and youtube videos).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2013 05:54AM by diddly.