Personally, I think John is beating himself up to a ridiculous point. I believe he has been frightened shitless, and is seeing things from a dramatically extreme position which I find quite frighteningly unreal.

I agree and that's why I think it's rather unsafe and unfair to try to infer anything serious from John's post.  As eloquent and plaintive as his comments are, he's clearly in no position to accurately recount anything.  Notice, Tempora, that John is not inviting any criticism or dialogue. My guess is that he knows deep down that he can't possibly justify his analysis rationally.  Indeed, if someone had a million bucks to float his way so he could get out of the mess he sees himself in, I'm sure he'd snap out of this self-flagellation fast enough. 

You want to see the real John MacGregor?  Re-read "Blinded by the Light".  Contrary to what he's saying now about himself, he comes through as an astute observer, not just of the cult and Rawat but of his own participation and its implications.  If you buy what John's saying now -- and it sounds like you do to some extent at least -- he went too far in that article.  Indeed, he went too far writing it at all.  Indeed, to hear John tell it, the entire notion of investigative journalism is ill-advised and unethical.  Nonsense, of course.

Anyway, I find it rather ironic that you say this at this time especially:

I hope he will eventually come to a more middle point in his realisations - to see Maharaji as human, and not an arch-fiend, yes. But that it was very needful to examine and deconstruct all the LOTU stuff, for the sake of many, including, incidentally, the former LOTU himself.

If Rawat was so "human" and not an "arch-fiend" John would never be in such dire straights.  It's like you're kissing the lapel of John Gotti when you say something like this in this context.