Why I removed the previous post

UPDATE: Because some of the comments on this post are wildly inaccurate, here's some additional context. I still feel bound by confidentiality to not state explicitly why the person who provided me with information about the Sabnanis asked me to remove the previous post. So I'll simply state some general observations about my experience with other religious "whistleblowers."

After I started this blog in 2004, I've heard from many people disillusioned either with the teachings of their religious organization (usually, but not always, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, because I belonged to the group for 35 years) or with the behavior of people associated with the religious organization. These people would share their story with me via email or a phone call.

Sometimes they'd ask that I share their story on this blog. Sometimes I'd ask them if it would be all right to share their story. In either case, frequently the source of the story would be worried about blowback, negative consequences, if they ever were identified. This might be because their family was still deeply enmeshed in the religious organization and relatives would be upset if they criticized that faith. Or it might be fear of retribution if leaders of the organization or fanatical followers learned their identity.

My point is that people have legitimate fears of going public with stories that put either the teachings of a religious organization or leaders of a religious organization in a bad light. It takes courage to overcome those fears and go public with a story. Based on my extensive experience with this over the years, I've come to admire those who contact me with information that needs to be known. This generally requires anonymity and confidentiality, as the National Whistleblower Center says on their web site. The statement below refers primarily to job-related whistleblowing, but the general principle also applies to religious organizations.

Individuals who come forward with evidence of fraud or wrongdoing at a company or organization may find themselves retaliated against for their disclosures. According to a study from the Bradley University Center for Cybersecurity, nearly two-thirds of the whistleblowers surveyed experienced some form of retaliation, including termination, forced retirement, negative performance evaluation, social ostracism, and blacklisting from other jobs in their field. The best way for a whistleblower to prevent retaliation is to remain anonymous. If your company does not know who you are, it will be harder for them to retaliate.

-----------------------------------

Wanted to let readers of this blog know that I removed the previous post about the Sabnanis at the request of a person who provided me with the information that I shared in the post. If I'm able to share why they asked me to do this, I will. If not, it's because I respect the wishes of people who send me sensitive information about their experiences with religious leaders. Often it's difficult for someone to decide whether they want to reveal a disturbing or painful experience. Occasionally they change their mind about going public after telling me their story. 

Comments

[Tej]

Hi Brian,
I find it strange that the person who sent you the information about Sabnanis would kind of back track.
What was their intention of the person sending it to you in the first place? (If they are not comfortable with it going public in a blog post.)
He/she/they should have no problems with it going public, especially if they have not been named nor any information disclosed about them.
I find this situation to be quite vague and careless.

[Donald]

There's nothing private on the internet. Not in an email not in a post not on social media not in the news. I have some private things to say but I've got perfect timing and I'm not ready yet.

[Truthseeker]

There's a lot to be said for people who publish uncorroborated character-assasinating allegations about individuals in such a reckless manner and then decide later that "Oh I respect the wishes of people who send me sensitive information...."

You have overstepped here Brian, and by making bold, unsubstantiated allegations about people who everyone knows could never be involved in any of the questionable activities you painstakingly set out in your now-deleted post, you have set a dangerous precedent and painted yourself as an irresponsible, shallow bigot.

I wish you luck you sad nonce.

[manjit]

I myself was struck by the tasteless, salacious and sensationalist nature of Brian's original blog post. "Gutter press" I think it's called.

Regardless, I think it's good it's been taken down whatever Brian's reasons are (I haven't bothered to read them tbf).

As I have my mentioned here time and time again, integrity just ain't a thing round here;

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation

[Tej]

I do think that accusations against Sabnani's could very well be true. As growing up in and around the Radhasoami community, I have yet to meet a so called "Perfect Saint" within the Sangat, as most members are just normal fallible human beings like every body else.
I myself am an initiate who is trying to "experiment" with the path, and still find myself falling for temptations or vices that are against the high moral standards of the path every now again. Who can blame me? (I live in Bangkok)

But my concern is, why did the post have to be taken down?
It would be interesting if we could get to know more about the Sabnanis and the Hypocrisy within the Radhasoami admin, and that such people can be exposed for portraying double standards.
Without a doubt, there are certain expectations for those who are in the higher authority of the Radhasoami organisation as they are direct representatives of the Master. They ought to be more accountable for their actions.

Though, I am a bit easier on myself, as I am just a regular Sangat member. Just trying to benefit from what the path may have to offer.

[Brian Hines]

truthseeker and Manjit, your comments are way wrong. Check out the update to this post that I just added. I'll share it below in case some people head right to the comments.
----------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Because some of the comments on this post are wildly inaccurate, here's some additional context. I still feel bound by confidentiality to not state explicitly why the person who provided me with information about the Sabnanis asked me to remove the previous post. So I'll simply state some general observations about my experience with other religious "whistleblowers."

After I started this blog in 2004, I've heard from many people disillusioned either with the teachings of their religious organization (usually, but not always, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, because I belonged to the group for 35 years) or with the behavior of people associated with the religious organization. These people would share their story with me via email or a phone call.

Sometimes they'd ask that I share their story on this blog. Sometimes I'd ask them if it would be all right to share their story. In either case, frequently the source of the story would be worried about blowback, negative consequences, if they ever were identified. This might be because their family was still deeply enmeshed in the religious organization and relatives would be upset if they criticized that faith. Or it might be fear of retribution if leaders of the organization or fanatical followers learned their identity.

My point is that people have legitimate fears of going public with stories that put either the teachings of a religious organization or leaders of a religious organization in a bad light. It takes courage to overcome those fears and go public with a story. Based on my extensive experience with this over the years, I've come to admire those who contact me with information that needs to be known. This generally requires anonymity and confidentiality, as the National Whistleblower Center says on their web site. The statement below refers primarily to job-related whistleblowing, but the general principle also applies to religious organizations.

"Individuals who come forward with evidence of fraud or wrongdoing at a company or organization may find themselves retaliated against for their disclosures. According to a study from the Bradley University Center for Cybersecurity, nearly two-thirds of the whistleblowers surveyed experienced some form of retaliation, including termination, forced retirement, negative performance evaluation, social ostracism, and blacklisting from other jobs in their field. The best way for a whistleblower to prevent retaliation is to remain anonymous. If your company does not know who you are, it will be harder for them to retaliate."

[Truthseeker]

Listen you idiot, this has nothing to do with protecting anonymity, but more to do with your slapstick and disastrous approach to publishing anything that will give your blog a modicum of attention, even if that something involves destroying the reputation of the innocent. Do you, short of an uncorroborated account from a nameless individual, have even a shred of evidence, outside of your own toxic bias, to back up this accusation?

I'm guessing you don't, so why take the gung-ho step of ruining someone's life? Any respect I ever had for you just went out the window you total clown.

[Truthseeker]

In fact, I think I'll write an anonymous post to your local PD suggesting that you're a serial paedophile. Then I'll retract it a few hours later citing my reluctance as a victim.

Do I have any evidence? According to your playbook, I clearly don't need any!

Will it cause you irreparable harm? Yes, but as long as my anonymity is protected, that's all that matters according to you.

Is it even true? Well that doesn't feature in your publication criteria by all accounts....

Yeah, let's do it. Let's really screw up your life you miserable low-life.

[sant64]

You guys just don't understand whistleblowing -- it's good journalism! Look, here's a perfect example. When Gurinder's wife died, this blog immediately speculated that she'd not died of natural causes, but had been killed by order of the guru.

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2022/10/shabnam-dhillons-death-leaves-questions-unanswered.html

[Truthseeker]

As for you Navtej, just remember everyone has their secrets, even you. Indeed, especially you Pematej.

Would you like it if someone published untrue facts about you and your family on this blog, on a mere whim? Someone with a grudge, an axe to grind?

How can you say, with any degree of certainty, that you "do think" the accusations against the Sabnanis are true? Have you met them in person? Or is it simply "cool" to support Brian-the-Charlatan whenever his ratings drop and he decides to sensationalise this cess-pit of a blog by destroying yet another life?

Be careful my friend, what goes around comes around. Haven't you suffered enough in your life?

[Truthseeker]

Sant64, that post was so unbelievably ridiculous that it never deserved, and still doesn't, a second glance.

This time though, casting dangerous aspersions on the most dedicated sevadar out there, and aspersions of a deviant nature, is just unacceptable by any measurable standard of decency and moral rectitude, not that either of these are present in Brian-the-Destroyer's vocabulary and modus operandi.

[Brian Hines]

Truthseeker, thanks for making my point about whistleblowers. Your uninformed reaction is to discount the first hand experience of people who have knowledge about some wrongdoing in an organization. They have direct knowledge of what happened, yet as the quote I provided from the National Whistleblower Center said, their identity has to be anonymous to avoid retribution.

Over many years I've simply shared what other people have told me about disturbing goings-on in a religious organization. Yet you attack me viciously, as well as other commenters who disagree with you. I can only imagine how you'd treat the people who reported those goings-on to me. It's no wonder that people are reluctant to speak out when they see how Defenders of the Faith like you respond to criticism of a religious organization. Fanaticism can be scary, whether it be religious, political, or otherwise -- as in soccer fans who riot when their team loses.

[Truthseeker]

I think it's time we took this site down. Brian, I will shortly be serving you as the owner of this blog with a lawsuit in the tort of defamation.

As you probably already know, your post was libellous in that it contained a statement, which named the plaintiff, attacked his character, with a falsehood (it will be characterised as untrue until you, as the publisher of the statement, are able to adduce evidence to prove its truth on balance of probabilities), was transmitted to third parties, and had the potential to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of others.

I'd seriously consider lawyering up right now if I was you....

Alternatively you could decide to publish an unconditional apology on your blog, retracting entirely any and all suggestions of impropriety on the part of the Sabnani family and labelling your words as unproven falsehoods. You have 24 hours Brian-ji!

[Truthseeker]

Viciously? Who me or you?? Look in the mirror you sanctimonious twit.

Your own quote: "Individuals who come forward with EVIDENCE of fraud or wrongdoing at a company or organization may find themselves retaliated against for their disclosures. According to a study from the Bradley University Center for Cybersecurity, nearly two-thirds of the whistleblowers surveyed experienced some form of retaliation, including termination, forced retirement, negative performance evaluation, social ostracism, and blacklisting from other jobs in their field. The best way for a whistleblower to prevent retaliation is to remain anonymous. If your company does not know who you are, it will be harder for them to retaliate."

Read the first line carefully. Evidence. Evidence. EVIDENCE.

Your accusation is entirely absent any proof whatsoever, you degenerate! Had you provided even a shred of proof, I would be singing your praises as the champion of the beleaguered and bereft. But that is not what you do is it?

No, what you choose to do is take the mere word of anyone who contacts you and then you launch your defamatory warhead, hoping to get people to fawn over you in admiration.

Provide evidence and I will sing a different, apologetic and reparatory tune.

Fail to do so within the time period stipulated, and yes indeed, face my (vicious) legal attack head on - you will deserve nothing less.

This has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with (your abject lack of) decency.

[Truthseeker]

Viciously? Seriously? Without a shred of evidence you chose to publish a crippling, life-destroying accusation against someone you've never even met and YOU call ME vicious? This is so cute....

[Angelofmercy]

I think what truthseeker is talking about is your lack of jugdement Brian
Maybe you should have checked your facts befkre putting such a damaging post on your site. Look before you leep etc

[Brian Hines]

Angelofmercy, the person who contacted me hasn't changed their mind about the facts. As I've been saying, they have a different reason for asking me to withdraw the post that I can't share at the moment because of confidentiality. I have no concern about either my judgment or the judgment of the person who contacted me. I didn't publish the post without being reassured about this. The problem lies elsewhere.

[Truthseeker]

Brian, all I am insisting on, without more, is that you provide irrefutable evidence when you publish such damaging material on your blog.

To not do so means that you either have none, or you are relying exclusively on someone else's account to goad you into destroying a person's life.

Our legal system long ago resolved this dilemma by never revealing a person's name when they are merely arrested on suspicion of something, while eagerly doing so when they are indicted formally by a prosecutor. And for good reason.

You have, by "naming and shaming" in your usual clumsy way, sought to condemn someone without having either established the facts incontrovertibly, or had the accusation tested by an independent fact-finder.

The problem therefore, as you rightly put it, does indeed lie elsewhere and logic and fairness dictate that you now need, as the bookies say, to put your money where your mouth is.

Trust me, this has very little to do with fanaticism and way more to do with due process. Do the right thing....

[Tej]

Truthseeker,

I do not know of the Sabnanis aside from what I've read on the blog post which has been taken down.
Yes, I did get carried away with the sensationalist nature of the post.
That said, my personal feelings and beliefs are that the characters of Master's representatives should be able to come up against any form of scrutiny or negative accusations.
The accusations against the Sabnanis as made by the unknown whistleblower could very well be false, as much as it could very well be true.
It doesn't matter what I think or what anyone thinks. What matters is the truth.
And the truth is, most followers of the Radhasoami path, including myself, are fallible human beings. We are not above and beyond human weaknesses and fallacies.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusations against the Sabnanis were, or are true. But that's just my biased opinion based on limited experiences with what I've seen or heard about members of the Radhasoami organisation, within the time I have been associated with this path.
Yes, I do find it cool to support Brian in sharing his truth and the truth of others. I find it cool to share in truth of varying perspectives period.

And FYI; you do not intimidate me in anyway.
Brian and the whistleblower do seem justified in taking down the post, especially after seeing/reading the nature and tone of your comments.

Last but not least, you are free to tell me a secret about myself, which I already do not know.

I couldn't give a 2 hoots if you know of me or my family, personally or not!

[Brian Hines]

Truthseeker, here in the United States a person's name is definitely released when they are accused of something. You must be speaking of the legal system in some other country. Regarding incontrovertible truth, what I have done since I started this blog in 2004 is simply report the experience of people who contact me about a problem they have observed with a religious organization or a religious leader. That's exactly what I did in this case also. I realize that if you're new to this blog, you probably aren't aware of how often I've reported criticisms of a religious organization or a religious leader that were communicated to me by someone else. This was nothing new in that sense, though naturally the details are different in every case.

[Suraj Gill]

That's very interesting — we always try to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected and safe.

What I find curious is that, despite all the controversies, not a single whistle-blower has come forward from within the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) community with solid evidence about Gurinder Singh Dhillon (GSD) and his close associates' alleged involvement in wrongdoing. Perhaps one day, someone with direct knowledge and evidence will speak out.

One piece of information I do find particularly noteworthy: while the Singh brothers and GSD — along with his family — have been linked to major financial fraud involving Religare, there's another name connected to this saga that often goes unmentioned: Dr. Sunita Naidoo.

Sunita Naidoo, a UK-based dentist, held formal leadership roles in the Religare group from 2008 to 2013, serving as a director of Religare Enterprises Ltd. and Religare Voyages Ltd.. Despite her professional base in the UK, she was given director-level authority in a prominent Indian company — which raises serious questions. How did a UK dentist come to occupy such a significant position within an Indian financial conglomerate?

Even more interestingly, Sunita Naidoo continues to be involved with several RSSB-linked charities and corporate entities in the UK and Europe. Many of these companies have since been dissolved — possibly after serving their intended purposes. Yet she remains listed as a director in many that still exist today.

Also worth noting: when GSD’s wife, Shabnam Dhillon, passed away, the death certificate listed Sunita Naidoo's home address rather than the well-known RSSB residence in Haynes Park, a luxurious property within the RSSB UK centre where GSD and his wife were known to reside. This, too, seems unusual and raises further questions.

There are many unanswered questions in this web of connections. Ultimately, only someone from within — an internal whistle-blower — can shed light on the full truth.

[Brian Hines]

Suraj, thanks for your comment. You make some great points. Yes, it is important to ensure that whistleblowers are protected and safe. Any attempt to intimidate or silence whistleblowers needs to be strongly resisted.

There are indeed quite a few questions about RSSB, including circumstances surrounding the death of the guru's wife and his involvement with financial fraud, that deserve further investigation. Maybe someday there will be some whistleblowers within RSSB who value speaking the truth over blind loyalty to their religious organization.

[77]

m happy somebody ilike TrUTHFINDER
Does such a good job nere
And like repeat my solution
PRAY 4DARSHAN by The fresh Hazur asap
With Laurel..

[um]

@ 777

THAT might be a good advise and have effect ....IF...there is the "inner pull", the hunger as MCS used to say ...and ...THAT is a G I F T ..that hunger

Why would anybody pray for Darshan if that burning desire to have darshan is not there???

[manjit]

manjit: "I myself was struck by the tasteless, salacious and sensationalist nature of Brian's original blog post. "Gutter press" I think it's called.
Regardless, I think it's good it's been taken down whatever Brian's reasons are (I haven't bothered to read them tbf).
As I have my mentioned here time and time again, integrity just ain't a thing round here;
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/7/21248713/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation"

Brian: "..... and Manjit, your comments are way wrong.".

Hey Brian. I'm not sure to what degree you have the right to declare my subjectively framed impressions of your posts as "way wrong", as I was under the impression we humans are free to have whatever subjective feelings we want?

Regardless, I recommend that in your blinding zealotry for criticising all things RS, religion and "God" related, that you remember that there are potentially real people involved, not only those being accused but also potential victims, family members etc.

I also recommend you pause and consider how very easy it is to manipulate you into making public allegations of potentially criminal misconduct. Basically, just send you anything, ANYTHING AT ALL remotely critical of RS in a private email, and you'll publish it with glee, right? However inane or ridiculous the content, if it contains praise of you and criticism of RS/religion/God, it gets published, right? I mean, we've seen it so many time over the years, just as I have cautioned you several times over the years this is so and how open you are to manipulation from anyone smart and deceitful enough to want to do it. Don't get me wrong, I would never, NEVER do it, but I know with quite some certainty I could write an email to you under an alias containing nothing but lies and BS, and get you to publish it. I have no doubt at all. Just ponder over what I'm saying for a moment.

What oversight is there on you publishing these accusations in public, ie. how many hours, days, weeks or months did you spend researching and cross checking all the alleged "facts" of the case before potentially ruining the lives of numerous people? Show us your journalistic chops, Brian, prove me wrong and lay out precisely how many people and hours were spent on verifying the alleged details before you decided to make these devastating allegations public (and then delete them shortly afterwards)?

Integrity. A word that keeps coming back to me when I read so many posts here. Or rather, the lack of it.

When you were praising and fawning over a senile and genocidal Biden, why did you not publish and discuss the several allegations of sexual misconduct against him on your blogs? Or did you, perhaps I missed it?:

https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html

Is your issue or "concern" with these kind of allegations more so about the accusations, or who is being accused?

At which point are we able to face the fact that many of humanity's problems are caused by double standards, hypocrisy and a lack of integrity?