Questions for Dave Lane from a Soul Traveler

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: June 1997

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


Hello David,
I am new to this news group and have read some posts over the past few
days.  I have a few questions for you David.

1. Could you tell me what religion you follow and tell me a little about


Thanks for your questions. I was brought up Roman Catholic, having
attended their schools for nearly 12 years and taught in them for
another five.

However, in 1973/74, I became attracted to the late Charan Singh of
Radhasoami Satsang Beas.

In November of 1978 I was initiated by Charan Singh.

As for what religion I currently follow, I don't think I follow any
religion in the formal sense of that word.

I can say, as I have stated before on this group and elsewhere, that
I consider myself more or less an agnostic mystical materialist (or
any jumble of those three words), which translates simply as:

"I really don't know much."

I am quite comfortable with that, and, as I said to Dodie, "I love
unknowingness" (since it keeps one learning more, hopefully).

Yet, on a much more personal note, I find that the core of my
spiritual practice is that I miss Charan Singh very much.

That longing, as he once stated to me in a personal letter, is the
crux of my meditation.

I miss my friend much more than I am able to describe.



2. Do you feel your religion is better than Eckankar?  Or better yet,
what makes your religion the right choice over Eckankar?


Since I don't follow a formal religion, as such, I don't know if I
can properly answer your query.

Quite frankly, I think we should be hyper critical of all religions,
including any shabd yoga related movement (from R.S. to Eckankar).

As for which religion is highest, I have absolutely no clue.

But, I do think we should have high standards for our chosen gurus,
spiritual leaders, and prophets.

Much of my writing on Eckankar concerns that very issue.


3. Why all the negativity towards Eckankar?  Is all of this because of
what PT did?


Ironically, when I reflect on Eckankar or Paul Twitchell or Harold
Klemp or Darwin Gross I don't necessarily think "negatively."

I have had a tremendously interesting time researching Eckankar all
these years and discussing it with various people in various

It is no doubt true that I think Eckankar treated Jim Peebles
horribly (he was an Eckist classmate of mine back at CSUN) and has
come up with a series of lame excuses to justify obvious deception,
plagiarism, and cover-up.

But, for me personally, I have enjoyed my research and I have found
Eckists in general to be fun and engaging, even if I am regarded as
"Hitler-like, Kal-like," etc.

Being hyper-critical does not necessarily mean one is "being

I like the to and fro of debates, even when I am on the receiving


feel most free to post any other questions

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.