Sorry, Jim, but IMO you can't make that assertion. It's totally negating his credibility.

He's seeing all his minor blemishes as massive protrusions and the cause of his problem. He also sees that the people he was commenting on at least have a human dimension.

He feels there are some lessons to be learnt by him.

He has, however, forgotten the whole other side of the story - that he felt compelled to speak out because of his integrity as a human and investigative journalist, and (my addition) as a brave guy.

This latter part has to be reminded to him and every reader here - otherwise John's present very one-sided view of things might seem to be a vindication of those he was commenting on.

Yes, I did read Blinded, Jim. John sent me a copy at the time which I critiqued for him.

'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.'

Don't rush to judgement, Jim.
The human is a reference to how John now sees Maharaji. As a human being, not some objective force (as he says in his apology).

One of the keys to understanding the whole K and M situation IMO is to see Maharaji as a human, with the whole array of human emotions, not as some incomprehensible entity. To see him as an arch-fiend would remove him from the orbit of human make-up and perpetuate a whole bizarre and impenetrable mystique.