I don't think Butler had any direct influence or direction in creating q-net per se. But what always amazes me is the fact that many of thee gurus attract the cream of the crop of chapters, charlatans and degenerates around them. AND, they often put these very same people in positions of influence, power and respect within the cult.
If one simply accesses the surface ritual of chanting and eating some vege food with these clowns, and stops at that, doesn't go deeper/further, they will be just fine. But if they start to want to know more, go deeper and so on, they will end up going down a rabbit hole that they may never be able to get out of. similar to Q-Net.
I'd venture to say that these cults end up operating much like Q-net. The need to keep followers enthused about an often abstract and obscure "endgame"/Product. A sense of belonging to a "special group" is at the heart of the preaching. Because if it's just matter of loving "god" or giving praise/faith/prayer/worship to god, any religious organization will do, from a practical standpoint. So it's about making followers think there is something unique about your offering. In the case of Butler's group, at least for many years, it was largely a personality cult. focus and attention was on Butler and what he wanted. But now, I think SIF and any extension of SIF is mainly a yoga studio that offers kirtans and occasional lectures.
ISKCON also went through a de-evolution like this. Now it's a society that could effectively resemble that of any church, temple or mosque out there. [www.iskcon.org
It's nice that they are taking ownership: [iskconnews.org
It would be really nice if SIF purged itself, came forward with its incongruences, made peace with its past and started on a clean slate, so-to-speak.
I think that is what is really telling for me in terms of the so-called spiritual depth of these institutions. Their followers do often live a sort of state of fear, paranoia, irrational adherence and ideology as if their once will fall off if they come out and speak about things frankly.
But of course, we all know why this is so difficult for them, having been in the cult ourselves: If you address and acknowledge the flaw of one thing that has been touted as "absolute" and "perfect" and "pure", naturally the rest of it is up for scrutiny and often times falls apart the deeper you dissect. and at that point you are considered a doubting Thomas, an apharadi, an offender and a blasphemer.
So in this way, religious structures stagnate in their own mythologies, arrogance and rigidness of beliefs. So in effect, it's not a system based on organic and realistic evolution, but one of forcing a framework of thought to fit against all odds and evidence.
Start by skipping, but don't be afraid to spring into a light job and eventually a full on run. It's good for you.