As previously published by Exmisa.
Abstract
The Misa/Atman yoga
cult provides a good case study to see where religious freedom should end and where
government regulation should start to protect people against indoctrination by
dangerous cults and sects.
The court case in Paris against Gregorian Bivolaru, Mihai and Adina Stoian and
other members of the Misa/Atman yoga cult, will make it painfully obvious that
regulation of cults is badly needed. Not to restrict religious and spiritual
freedom, but in order to shine light in the dark corners of society where the
free will of people has been compromised by those who are manipulating and
controlling them.
Cult of the cults' defenders
For some time now, Willy Fautré has become MISA's favourite. While Introvigne publishes more to show off his erudition in matters of sacred love or to wage war on the competition from anti-cults (he being an unconditional defender of all cults), and S. Palmer seems more interested in the status of women and positioning in relation to feminist ideologies, Willy seems the only one interested in openly defending cults and their leaders from a legal point of view, what is of greatest interest to those at MISA, who have understood that they would not be successful in court with philosophical-esoteric dissertations or feminist militancy, but with concrete issues in the field of human rights, with lawyerly chicanery and with the manipulation of articles and paragraphs of criminal laws, with which to try to combat the prosecutors' evidence and make up for the lack of arguments of the defence.
Because the greatest concern at MISA is not the image of the followers or the organization through the practices they carry out (an image that can't be washed away with all the urine in the world anyway) nor the fate of the women in the school (which has never interested them anyway), but the fate of the leader Bivolaru, who was caught like a rooster among the hens sitting on eggs, but swears that it was love with consecration and not sexual abuse.
And Uncle Willy delivered the best and most consistent: he frontally attacked (in 6-7 articles) the French police raids and hurried to defend the two ATMAN leaders, Stoian and Bivolaru.
The problem is that, when they defended the two Stoians, the NGO supporters distanced themselves from Bivolaru's case, as if they already considered him guilty or a lost cause (they had apparently found out that the police had filmed his "performance").
Recently, Willy F. came out with a new post about a conference he attended, regarding ”The role of the media in the stigmatization of religious minorities” (link). Because, isn't it, the press is guilty of the "wonders" that happen in cults, and the description of their practices is labelled as "stigmatization", as if the press had a duty to promote all the nonsense of cults. But the press shows what happens inside these groups, and the truth hurts, as we know, and this is called "stigmatization", that is, "applying the sign with a red-hot iron". In reality, the defenders of cults secretly profit from this stigmatization, because in this way they have a reason to exist and an opportunity to be noticed.
⬧ I quote from Fautré's article:
On August 1-3, 2025, the organisation convened its 3rd International Conference in New York on the theme of “The Root Causes of Contemporary Threats to Freedom of Religion.” On that occasion, was presented a paper titled “The role of the media in the stigmatization of and hostility against some religious or belief minorities.”
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the individual right to freedom of religion or belief, to practice it either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one’s religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The wording is very similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so are other international instruments protecting freedom of religion or belief.
comment:
It is wonderful that Article 9 protects the individual right to freedom of religion or belief, to practice and manifest it, but I do not see in the concerns of these religious rights luminaries the articles that protect the rights and freedoms of members of these religious minorities in relation to the group to which they belong, as would be correct for truth, fairness and balance. Because these groups are not always paradisiacal oases, as they present themselves in their own statements and in the multi-coloured flyers that they distribute, of course, for the sake of respecting other religious beliefs...
⬧ quote:
The United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights, the EU Court of Justice and other international mechanisms use neutral terminologies to name any religious or belief community in their declarations, reports or court decisions. The media, other information and communication actors in Europe do not usually have that practice towards a number of religious or belief movements that they identify as “cults”, with a negative connotation. In the last decades, this negatively connotated category of “cults” or “sects” has been artificially constructed to try to exclude some religious or belief groups from the protection of Article 9 of the ECHR. The main drivers behind this movement of hostility were and are former disgruntled members, thirsty for revenge.
comments:
By the above statements, the author of these statements implicitly claims either that cults do not exist, being an artificially created concept, or that religious minorities are actually something eminently positive, but the “negative connotation of the term cult” hides this positive quality. It is as if you were saying that only good exists, and evil does not exist, but is an invented concept. “Neutral terminologies” are actually meant to hide reality, to dress it up, to be less disturbing. It is as if you were naming excrement by the neutral term “product of metabolism”, trying to hide its unpleasant appearance and smell in the expression, while in concrete reality, these devastate the senses. The fact that excrement hides under a neutral rug does not make its existence and smell disappear.
Neutral terminologies can be understood in the case of the State, which is a framework that must ensure the coexistence of many different aspects of society. However, this neutral attitude is also the result of the lack of a debate at the state level, while this debate exist in the media. Just as the state has established criteria to distinguish criminal or terrorist groups, it should have established criteria for defining and classifying cults.
The establishment of cult criteria has been inhibited by the prevalence of religious rights and freedoms, but this cannot be absolute, as evidenced by the cases in which fundamental human rights are violated within cults.
A person is and must be free to believe what he wants for himself, but he does not have the right to impose this on others! Here is the big problem with cults: it ignores the fact that, under the cover of freedom of belief, others' freedoms are violated. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses - those so defended by Fautré and his colleagues - reject certain medical interventions (for example blood transfusions) on the pretext that they would defile the blood and body, and this attitude often endangers the health and even the lives of the children of the group's members. For if an adult endowed with discernment has the capacity - and therefore the right - to choose to accept or refuse - only for himself! - medical treatment, a child does not have this capacity.
The hesitation to cut the Gordian knot of this problem comes from the fear that the problem may turn on the one who imposes it. A sectarian will ask: "What right do you have to baptize your children in your religion and take them with you, forcibly, to church?" And the question is disturbing, because any parent will want to baptize their children in their own religion and take them to church, and then impositions are avoided, but this leaves things in a gray, unclear area.
Thus, by generalizing, they have reached a mixing of abstract issues with concrete ones. More precisely, they are mixing INTERNAL freedom of belief with EXTERNAL freedom. Every person has the right to believe what he wants for himself, but he does not have the right to IMPOSE his faith by force on others!
That is the problem with neutrality: it mixes things up! It mixes good with evil, reality with illusion, the concrete with the abstract, the inside with the outside, trying to make room for everyone, while some try to make room only for themselves! The problem is not who owns the truth, but the fact that some want to forcefully impose "their truth" on others!
Bivolaru is not on trial for declaring himself spiritually accomplished or a god, but for what he did to others in the name of this faith! He was not charged with kidnapping women in the sense that he took them by force and locked them up, but for the fact that they were kept in a building from which they could not leave without permission and their phones and identity documents were withheld, given that even the authorities have the right to withhold them only under certain specific conditions. Even if the women had agreed to submit to the requests, these did not start with them. It was not the women who said "hey, look, we thought it would be a good idea to put our documents and phones in this safe, lock them up and give you the key for safekeeping, so that we would not fall into the demonic temptation to talk to our family or surf the Internet on our mobile phone and thus reveal the location of our guru, causing him a lot of harm!" The request did not come from within, but from someone outside, and this changes the facts of the problem, because the question arises as to what those who made this request were pursuing, given that no one would do such a thing on their own initiative.
French law seeks to cover this situation, which does not exist in the legislation of other countries and thus leaves room for abuse! The law is primarily preventive in its nature, and French law warns: "you are not allowed to ask someone else to do what they would not normally do, so if you do not take this into account, you will pay for this!"
Bivolaru restricted the freedom of those women under the pretext of his safety, as he declared to the investigators. So he pursued his own interest, violating the freedom of others. The fact that he was being pursued by the police is only his problem, which he should have solved alone, without involving anyone else. But since he cannot abstain from sex, he has transferred his problem to others. Selfish, perverse and criminal!
Fautré and his friends say that the women of MISA have the right to believe and practice whatever they want. Their lie is that ALL the women of MISA freely engage in the practices within the group, which is false.
There are SOME women who believe that they have been abused or manipulated and because of this MISA has come under the spotlight of justice so many times. Many women of MISA declare themselves delighted with the meetings with Bivolaru, but NOT ALL! And this is actually the heart of the problem.
Fautré and colleagues claim that the “false problem of cults” is due only to “disgruntled former members, eager for revenge” and that if there were no “apostates”, the cults would have an immaculate image and everyone would have rushed to join them!
By the way, if the NGO defenders are so delighted with the practices of MISA and consider them normal or even “sacred”, do they practice them themselves? Because it is illogical to defend “values” without adopting those “values”!
And the NGO defenders also ignore the reasons why the “apostates” left the group. They initially had a favourable opinion of the group they joined, but this opinion changed over time. Why? Maybe they had good reasons, maybe it was even a violation of the principles promoted on the face of the group, to which they initially joined! Perhaps cults say one thing on the outside and do another on the inside!
That is a lie, which is rejected by all moral codes, including those preached by cults!
Fautré and colleagues have decreed that there are no cults and that all religious beliefs are positive, ignoring that these beliefs are often the screens behind which nefarious purposes are hidden. They have also decreed that those who do not believe in the sincerity of these beliefs are mistaken and malicious, and that the media should share the vision of the protectors of religious minorities. This is by no means a neutral vision and, moreover, it is even a sectarian vision in itself!
At the same time, they take full advantage of the debate about cults. If society suddenly came to their conclusion, that there are no cults, that all religious beliefs and communities are absolutely free and there is no need for laws and organizations to watch over them, the need for defenders of freedom of belief would automatically disappear, and they, with their vanity, their academic titles and their useless works, in which they mix values and cover up reality, making it neutral, would disappear into anonymity and... unemployment! They exist only because the cults exist! They pretend to defend cults, but they profit when cults have problems, for them this debate is manna from heaven! If the debate would be settled once and for all, in the sense that inner freedom of belief is one thing and outer freedom is another, they would disappear like smoke. That is why they do not even want the problem to be solved and continue to deliberately mix and confuse the different aspects of the problem.
In fact, the defenders of cults realize that the image of cults is not only due to vengeful "apostates", because over time there have been journalists or investigators who infiltrated these communities. But their hatred for "apostates" is the result of a psychological mechanism: when they put on their horse-like glasses as defenders of religious minorities, they automatically found themselves enemies of anti-cult organizations.
But while anti-cult associations are based on concrete aspects, which are quantifiable and can be proven (violations of external freedoms), the defenders of cults are based only on abstract, internal aspects, which cannot be quantified (and which, for this reason, are not even combated by anti-cults). The defenders of cults pretend not to see that the anti-cult organizations are not discussing doctrinal aspects ("heresies"), but about concrete abuses!
⬧ quote:
The categorization of some religious, spiritual or belief groups as “cults,” additionally qualifies as dangerous, harmful or totalitarian is first of all the work of the “anti-cultists” or “counter-cultists.” These are either individuals, apostates, anti-cult associations, or even public authorities and state institutions. The misuse of these derogatory labels, used without restraint by anti-cultists has caused a lot of damage to these religious minorities and their members in their personal and professional lives. However, media outlets also have their share of responsibility in the stigmatization, hostility, intolerance and damage caused to individuals when out of sensationalism they publish, without investigating and checking, biased and false accusations of the anti-cultists, spread their fake news and sometimes quite gross lies.
comments: "The abusive use of these derogatory labels, without restrictions". What restrictions? The only condition that is right to be imposed on the media is that of the veracity of the statements. If the statements are correct, then what is the problem? That the image of the cults and their leaders is affected? That is their problem, not the press's! In the case of MISA, what are the accusations made in the media that have not been proven true?
⬪ Multiple sexual relationships (polyamory link) and group sex (confirmed by Bivolaru link1 and link2) - checked!
⬪ Drinking urine (promoted by MISA site's link and confirmed in porn movies link) - checked!
⬪ Video chat and porn movies made and sold in-house (click on the "Kubera tantric shopping" banner at this link, then on "Tantra" and finally on "Tantriske film" link) - checked!
⬪ Pole dancing in Japan and erotic massage for a fee in the "tantric temples" of MISA (link) - checked!
⬪ Transporting women with their eyes covered, to sexual initiation with the guru (link) - checked!
Introvigne dismissed this last accusation as sensationalistic ("cloak-and-dagger story" link), but it turned out to be true, as even Bivolaru was forced to admit it, faced with the filmed evidence. (link)
⬪ "Tasty" games for overcoming sexual limits (Stoian video) - checked! Etc.
Probably the only accusation that has not been proven in the MISA case is drug trafficking. Drug use at MISA is only in isolated individual cases, it is not something general (article, Romanian only). However, some female students who went to Bivolaru for "sexual initiation" stated that they were given a liquid to drink that made them dizzy (link).
In general, when it comes to media revelations about cults, there is no smoke without fire, while defenders of cults argue that since there are no cults, there is no smoke. Fautré gives the example of a trial in which the anti-cult organization FECRIS was found guilty of defaming “Jehovah’s Witnesses” on 18 counts, but ignores that it was right on 14 other counts. FECRIS is obliged to pay financial compensation for the 18 proven defamatory accusations. But who takes action in the case of the other 14 charges that were proven?
Were “Jehovah’s Witnesses” sanctioned for the 14 charges? Furthermore, in the case of many crimes that take place in secret or in an intimate setting, it is very difficult to provide overwhelming evidence, but that does not mean that the facts do not exist and that sin has disappeared from the world!
In the case of MISA, where is it proven that oaths of secrecy are taken regarding their activities, how many illegal acts have been committed without being able to be proven, due to secrecy? Since the practice of oaths of silence is proven at MISA (there are even Bivolaru's conferences), why don't human rights defenders take a stand? Aren't human rights affected by the imposition of these oaths? Why are secrets kept at MISA?
Obviously also to hide bad and illegal acts, because if they were only good and legal acts, there would be no point in hiding them. And then what effects do these bad acts have? They violate legal and moral laws, ultimately affecting other people and therefore their civil and moral rights!
⬧ quote:
This climate of hostility, intolerance and sometimes hate against marginal religious or belief groups in many European countries, which usually enjoys total impunity, was clearly denounced in the last report.
comments: Cults will never acknowledge public statements that do not agree with them (even if they are true), and will automatically consider them as part of a campaign of hostility against them. They believe that they are not doing anything bad or illegal, the evil is only with others, this being one of the characteristics of cults.
And then why should others be forced to believe all the nonsense of sectarians or to trust them? Think that the Mormon doctrine was launched by an individual who, while in a coma following an electric shock, had a vision of an entity with a lizard head that "revealed the true teaching" to him. What do you say to some Mormons (they always come two by two, like the apostles) who knock on your door: "Hi guys, how beautifully the lizard head spoke!"?? You tell them: "Go to your business, because I have my own business!"
Why be labeled intolerant for that? As they consider automatically your faith as wrong (because that's why they come to preach "the good one"), you have exactly the same right to consider their faith as wrong!
We see here the "positive discrimination" that is demanded to be applied to religious or sexual minorities, towards which MISA has often expressed its rejection (see their position towards LGBT) but, when it suits them, they suddenly embrace it and demand that it be applied! You are not intolerant of believers, but of their beliefs! In the subway or in public spaces, sit next to them (of course, as long as they don't preach), but after that everyone goes their own way!
⬧ quote:
In the section devoted to anti-cultism, it stressed that “several governments in the EU have supported or facilitated the propagation of harmful information about certain religious groups”. Several states created so-called cult observatories at the local or national levels. Such state institutions increasingly appear to be illegitimate in their modus operandi in the light of a number of decisions of the European Court which, among other things, clearly warn against the use of the term “cult” – or “sect” in other languages – because it fuels undue suspicion, stereotyping, and hostility towards some peaceful and law-abiding religious or belief groups.
comments: There would be no need for anti-cults organizations or “observatories” and there would not even be a need for the “term cult” if the legislation had separated the waters and clearly established how far the freedom of one’s own belief goes in relation to the freedom of others. Rejecting the use of the term cult does not eliminate their existence, but rather imposes the idea that they do not exist. We know very well what MISA and groups like it are after: “Let us do what we want, don’t tell us what to do, but we have the right to tell you what to do, because we are godly, and you are demonic. We promote the new unique planetary faith, which will replace yours (link), because they are obsolete.” So there are no cults, right?
Asking that the use of term cult to be stopped is equivalent to imposing by force the idea that there are no cults!
And while MISA promotes articles in which it is practically claimed that there are no cults, Bivolaru himself produced a book entitled "Is YOGA a cult or a spiritual path?", which presents... the criteria by which cults can be recognized and which, with a couple of exceptions (which are no longer certain, considering what happened in Paris), MISA successfully ticks off! (link) The book claims that yoga (and therefore MISA, which in Bivolaru's opinion identifies with yoga), is not a cult. But other groups are of course cults, I quote:
In the case of many cults, the work imposed is often excessive, it is brutalizing, mechanical, even robotic. In very many cases, this work is found in the propaganda and recruitment of new members, which the cults carry out without stopping, as we can all see in the case of the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
(archive, chapter 18, Volunteer work, Romanian)
In an earlier analysis, posted in English and which no longer appears in the book, an analysis that belongs entirely to Bivolaru, other cults are also named which, surprisingly, are among the groups supported by the NGO-ists who protect cults! I quote:
The approached techniques are usually simple and confining. For instance: group songs obsessively chanted; the reiteration of so-called long mantras (such as the Hare Krishna sect, going for the stereotype. (archive) “Ananda Marga” sect, based on some neo-nazist ideology, or the sect “Jehovah’s witnesses” utterly displaying anarchical features. (archive)
As can be read in Bivolaru's analysis, contrary to the theses of his NGO defenders published by MISA, cults are not only very real, but they pose a social danger (which is true, as evidenced by MISA itself), but he does not consider MISA to be a cult. Double standards are the standard by which truth is weighed at MISA.
This double standard also existed regarding the issue of "brainwashing" within cults. While MISA takes up the theses of their friends, according to which this is a false theory (Introvigne - link), also at MISA, a recent article, titled ”In the laboratory of consciousness – the mechanisms of brainwashing” (archive, Romanian only) treats this problem as something real and very serious.
⬧ Fautré's article concludes:
To sum up the remarks:
- anti-cultists create from scratch “cults” that they describe as “dangerous or harmful to society,”
- the media, which thrive on sensationalism rather than facts, seize on the “cult” issue as a good topic because that boosts the sales or the audience,
- the States, misinformed by anti-cultists, feel obliged to protect their citizens from this scourge, and create exceptional laws and specialized repressive bodies, such as the “cult police” in France.
Anti-cult associations, media outlets and anti-cult state institutions send a signal of distrust, threat and danger, and create a climate of suspicion, intolerance, hostility, and hatred in society.
comments: Yeah, sure, and in this time, the cults and the associations that defend them under the pretext of Human Rights (but not of the victims of the cults), send a comforting signal of peace and trust...
Reading this kind of scholarly productions like the present article, one can understand how important the Paris trial is not only regarding the Bivolaru/MISA issue, but also that of cults and the legislation regarding cults in general. If the accusations against the Bivolaru's cults are proven in court, especially in light of some evidence caught in the act, which will be presented at the trial and can be viewed publicly, perhaps the current legislation, which is very poor, unclear and permissive, will also change. It will also be interesting to follow the effect on the associations that defend the cults although, from the perspective of their attitude, they cannot be suspected of impartiality, objectivity and conscience, assuming they have a conscience.
The complicity of the "initiates"
So far, in the debates about the manipulation and sexual abuse committed for decades at MISA, revealed by the victims and the French police investigation, only the role of the guru and his acolyte was discussed, but there was very little talk about the complicity of the students who participated in the "sexual initiations" with the guru Bivolaru.
Several victims spoke in podcasts exposing MISA/ATMAN about the collective pressure exerted on them, to accept sexual initiation with Bivolaru despite their reservations and disgust, pressure coming from female students who had already been sexually initiated by the guru in Paris or were even waiting to enter the initiation.
Ashleigh Freckleton talked about this (podcast p1 and p2 ), even before the French investigation was launched.
When a student received an invitation to the guru for the first time, after she had taken the vow of keeping of the secret even before knowing what was coming, she was "encouraged" by the community of "initiates", who already knew how things were going and who could discuss this topic with each other (instead they were not allowed to discuss with the "uninitiated"). The same thing happened in the homes where dozens of students waited for their turn to the guru (see Eva's story from the German podcast Toxic Tantra, page 3 - link ).
But so far, the complicity (intentional or not) of those students who were found in the locations has not been analysed. We are talking about those students in the waiting room or even in the guru's apartment and who refused (either out of fear of "falling into hell", or because they were bound by oath or simply out of devotion to the guru) to give statements about the reason about why they are there and how they got to that secret location. Because if those students, even if they did not believe they had been abused, they would have answered the police's questions honestly and stated how they had ended up to be contacted and invited by an internationally wanted individual hiding in secret locations and how they had reached this point, it would have helped confirm the trafficking allegations and exposed the entire system.
- the whole branch or octopus - which includes the instructors and devotees of the guru. The attitude of these students to refuse to report the truth, proves both indoctrination and blind faith in the guru, as well as stupidity because, since they were found in the monitored locations when the raids took place, it is clear that they were filmed while they were being brought in cars, being led by hand with their eyes covered, so that the fact that these students continued to claim - as they had been previously instructed by the forms - that they came alone, It is not only a brazen lie, but also an absolutely unnecessary one.
I have taken note of the fact that if there are police checks when you are in your car or at home, you should show your ID card or passport and make sure you always have them with you (your ID card or passport). Only if you are asked in more detail what you are doing here or if a more special situation arises - a control when you are in the car etc - then you will say the following:
- I came here by bus or plane (each according to its own case), I bought my TICKET MYSELF
- I came here to attend a Shakti seminar that will be held in this city on (date written on the flyer) and you will say the DATE ON WHICH THE SEMINAR WILL BE and not the date that has already passed or the date you are on at that time.
If by chance it is the same day that is written on the flyer, then you can say that you don't know any more details about the seminar, but you will attend.
- I arrived here 2, 3, 4 or 5 days ago and "I want to visit the city too".
- I signed up for this seminar by phone or online on the yoga website in France, the dates listed on the flyer
- I live with some friends, for free; there are instructors here - Sorin Turc and Voichita Suciu - I talked to them before departure and they agreed to help me by offering me shelter during my stay here.
- I PAY FOR MY FOOD MYSELF and we buy food together.
- all the CDs and DVDs you have are yours and you brought them with you from home.
- don't give any other details, just the information you read above, that's all you know
- if the police ask you to give a statement of any kind (written or verbal) you will say that you know nothing and you will give any statement only in the presence of a lawyer! ( document )
The fact that the police found their documents, as well as their cards and phones, which had been seized and wrapped in metallic foil, proves that it was a deliberate act of sequestration, even if they agreed to it.
Faced with the investigators' evidence, the guru was forced to admit, so "devotion and sacrifice" it was useless for the students anyway:
According to the surveillance conducted, in the 13 months preceding the arrests, the agents estimated that no less than 5 to 10 women were "assigned" to him each week. The victims often arrived in Paris by plane from the Danish branch of the sect, Natha, and by car from Romania or other Eastern European countries.
The Romanian henchmen then confiscated their IDs and phones, blindfolded them, before placing them in cars with tinted windows and forcibly drove them to one of the sect's many lodgings.
"Why so many constraints on devoted followers?", the investigators ask: "I was threatened with death," Bivolaru claims. "They could give my address to someone who wants to kill me," he tries to defend himself.
( source )
The fact that only women were brought to Bivolaru refutes the guru's claim that they "came to speak" about yoga, and for some the desire to make love arose and so we made love, obviously, when "the love was mutual" ( source ) It is absurd to think that at MISA only women (and only young ones) were interested in yoga!
The stupor of the French investigators is understandable, even though they had witnessed how the students were brought in, they continued to hide the facts or even lie for Bivolaru to cover him up, while he treated them as potential traitors! Moreover, they began to pose as police victims, although their attitude turns them into accomplices of the guru, which justifies the treatment meted out to them. In fact, the most serious aspect of their behaviour is not their aberrant devotion to the guru - after all, each has the right to admire any one she wants - but the fact that, by covering up for the guru, they make it possible for even more students to be manipulated and abused in the future!
This is why the police treated them severely, because they are "sui generis" accomplices of the guru
("Favouring the offender"), and also because of them, other students may fall prey to the guru if he escapes and this time from the net of justice. If they had put their minds to it, the investigators could have charged them with complicity and concealment (because they made contact with an internationally wanted person, hiding this fact from the authorities).
Not much came of it, they just shook them up a bit (fines, expulsion, ban on returning to France), but seeing how indoctrinated they are, they left them to the Lord's punishment. In fact, this very indoctrination, if it is noticed and understood by the court, it is incriminating evidence (manipulation, abuse of weakness) and could even to aggravate the situation of the accused.
These devotees of the guru probably imagine that, through their resistance and "sacrifice," they are burning away their bad karma or that they accumulate “good karma.” In reality, they are burdened with part of the guru’s bad karma, for they are accomplices - both morally and materially - to his misdeeds and bears part of the responsibility for the past, present, or perhaps future sufferings of the victims, in case the guru escapes again. Their unconsciousness is astonishing. It is not excluded that some of these students, having already suffered from the acts of the guru, to get even more involved, bearing false witness in his favour. They have already done so in part, through the statements they gave to "scientist" Susan Palmer ( link ) and MISA/ATMAN's NGO friends.
Once again it is proven that what happens at MISA cannot be exclusively the work of the leader, who is of one alone, and moreover, he cannot act directly, as he has been hiding from the authorities for a long time. Unfortunately, a large part of the crimes at MISA are committed by followers or with their connivance. As long as you do part of the hell team, you can't claim to be an angel.
The Conclusion
Much more research and surveillance of cults and their ways of
operating is needed. Just like many countries have institutions in place that
are there to protect the health and safety of children, in the same way we need
similar institutions that keep checking the health and safety of grownups. Not
to limit the spiritual or religious freedoms, but to shine the light on the
dark corners of society. Only in openness and truthfulness can true
spirituality flourish. If cults need to hide things then you can be sure it is
not true spirituality but some sort of abuse and manipulation of people trapped
in this cult! And like shown times and times again, the Misa/Atman cult is a
master of hiding and avoiding truth.
Absolute truth has nothing to hide, only things to show in order to inspire
people. But the mission for integrating the self in the absolute (Misa) is
unfortunately not living up to its name.