From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: An Exploration of Change and Adaptation Ron Geaves Nova Religio; Mar 2004; 7, 3; pg. 45 Abstract (Article Summary) The following article will put forward the argument that it is necessary to take into account the worldview of the insider in order to appreciate the coherence or "rationality" of actions of a religious-spiritual teacher or organization.

Given this particular thesis (which strikes me as a bizarre, full-frontal assault on rationality itself), doesn't it especially behoove Geaves to disclose that he is, in fact, one such "insider"?  I mean, even if he was simply writing an article about Rawat, as Joe and others have observed, his personal involvement and interest in the subject matter would dictate that failing to explain that he himself is, in fact, a follower, seems a glaring and misleading omission, indeed a conflict of interest.  Here's what one site on authorship ethics says on the matter:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence judgment. These activities may include academic competition or personal relationships, although financial relationships of industry are considered the most important. Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how these conflicts of interest are handled. Some journals do not accept submissions from authors with a conflict of interest.

Financial relationships and their effects are less easily-detected than other conflicts of interest. The authors should disclose to the editors any commercial associations, contractual relations, or proprietary considerations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript. All sources of funding for the work, personal connections, and institutional affiliations of the authors should be acknowledged in a footnote on the title page.

But here, where Geaves' very thesis is essentially that only an insider can judge the teacher or organization, surely he has an even greater than usual obligation to disclose that, lo and behold, he is just such an insider.  

By analogy, if Geaves worked for some drug company that made an anti-depressant and he were writing an academic article about that drug, he'd be seriously remiss if he did not disclose his personal relationship with the manufacturer, his conflict of interest.  But if his article argued -- reasonably or not -- that the only way one can assess the drug at all is by being under its influence which he just so happens to be, and has been for the last thirty some odd years, it would be simply ridiculous for him to withhold this crucial information.  I keep wanting to say a "hyper conflict of interest".  A classic fraud in any event. I wonder, was this article ever commented on?  Did Geaves ever present it anywhere?  Was there any peer review?  Perhaps the University of California Press can answer this question.  Hm......