Hi Grounded-Here,
if you need entertainment, you could take a look at the Moo crowd's latest financials:
[
beta.charitycommission.gov.uk]
Just click on 'documents' in the heading bar and then click on the PDF of the latest document 'December 2018'.
Lots of interesting holiday reading. Tony is still listed as both a patron and an employee of the so-called charity. He receives a
yearly income and also some
'speaking fees', which I didn't realize before this. Looks like they have to pay him to show up!
The Moo 'charity' have listed a total of
seven employees, everyone else is a volunteer. The seven employees make very little money between them - a pittance, really.
The group raked in over 500,000 pounds in donations for the year, almost as much as they made holding retreats and intensives.
I notice that their trading subsidiary
Mooji Media owns the copyright to satsungs, audio and to their
'music' as well. I was just wondering if the artists featured on the latest CD (released by
Mooji Mala Music - yes, they have their own label!) get paid any royalties for their music or if they are volunteering their time, energy and talent in order for Tony to profit? Hmmmmm. Perhaps they should join their local musician's union?
Interesting to note the amount spent on
travel. Since Old Moo doesn't move around all that much, it looks like he might be flying business class these days. They've spent over 59,000 pounds on 'transport' for the year 2018 - but they spent 'zero' on transport the previous year.
In 2018, the Moo charity gave over
358,000 pounds to the ashram in Portugal - Monte Sahaja, in the form of a
grant. That's over U.S.
$468,000! Where does all this money go?The ashram is built with volunteer labor, and the volunteers actually pay to stay there - in tents and in dormitories. In fact, the ashram claims to be running at a
profit already - albeit a small profit, without the grant money taken into account. Could they really be spending all that money on pit toilets and cold showers? Tents and bunk beds?
It doesn't seem plausible.