The "Career" of an Eck Researcher

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: Neural Surfer
Publication date: 1996

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.

Steve writes about Lane:

"David Lane's entire career is based on
abusing the teachers of religions that he sees as being in competition
with his own beloved Master (Does he do it with implicit consent?)"


Dear Steve,

It so refreshing to have someone explain to me what my entire career
is about....

But in the spirit of honest disagreement (and given the fact that I
have hung around this Lane character for some 40+ years), I will
give you some inside scoop about him and his career. Some things you
may not know, and other things you may not wish to know. Or, to use
your phrase, "very mental stuff," which may suggest a different line
of reasoning behind my choices, my writings, my career.

1. I have no desire to "abuse" teachers of any tradition. Actually
it is quite the opposite. I want our spiritual guides to stop
"abusing" us, the naive, the gullible, the easily taken in.

Thus I have written a number of sharp pieces on several gurus,
including Paul Twitchell, John-Roger Hinkins, Da Free John, Thakar
Singh, and others.

Unlike you, I happen to think that spiritual teachers who make
absolutist claims should be held accountable. I also think that if
any guru is genuine he/she can stand some documented criticism.
Again, I have substantiated the major claims I have made against
Twitchell. He was the one, lest you forget, that lied, that
plagiarized, that covered-up. 

I see nothing wrong in letting an unsuspecting public know the
darker chapters of Eckankar's history. 

Tell me, where can the concerned Eckist today learn about Darwin

Is it in the Eckankar home page? Well, does it include the following
quote from the former Living Eck Master and Mahanta, Sri Darwin

"ECKANKAR TREATED ME LIKE SHIT." (see Dodie Bellamy's article for
the San Diego Reader for confirmation of this quote from Darwin

I didn't say Eckankar treated me like shit, but

The Living Eck Master of Eckankar for some ten years did.

Do I think it is important for would-be followers of Eckankar to
know more about Darwin Gross's behavior, even when he was a

Well, yes.

Why? Because then one can see better what one is joining.

I have done a number of critiques along these lines.

I am not ashamed in the least in exposing John-Roger Hinkins'
underside. He claimed to be God-enlightened, so I just simply asked
a series of questions: Why does the God-man want to rump range his
heterosexual disciples with astral excuses? Why does the God-man
basically rip off Eckankar doctrines without properly acknowledging
his sources (see, I am even doing Twitchell a favor here, since
Twitchell wanted to sue John-Roger for plagiarism! Talk about the
ultimate irony). Why does the God-man wish to rob a researcher's
house? Why does the God-man want to send out smear letters world-wide
from his own home computer? Why does the God-man want to kill my

Simple questions and nothing abusive about them. The abuse started
and continues with J.R. I just wanted to point it out.....

Same with Thakar Singh, who blindfolds young kids and sexually
abuses women.

Same with Paul Twitchell, though not in the same league with the
above two, who systematically lied to his following about a variety of

I just asked some questions, got some answers, and provided some of
my own commentary.

That's not abuse. The abuse is in Gurus who lie to their wives, to
their family, and to their followers.

2. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I write against
teachers who are "competition" with my spiritual guide. Well, first
of all, you should know that my teacher died some six years ago.
Second, I have never written anything with his "consent"--implicit
or explicit. Third, have you ever read THE UNKNOWING SAGE? I
strongly suggest that you do so. Why? It contradicts point by point
orthodox shabd yoga theology. In sum, it contradicts the very
tradition I was brought up in.

Sorry for the cosmic mind-fuck (or, the cognitive dissonance), but I
just happen to agree with Fitzgerald that the mark of intelligence is
the "ability to hold two or more contradictory ideas in one's mind
and still be able to function."

What this means is that I don't mind being my own best critic. And I
realize that there are many things which we do not fully understand
at present and that the best of our thinking will undergo an
evolution. That evolution of thought, like eliminative materialism,
allows us to be both critical and open and to discriminate in the
midst of competing thoughts/ideas/concepts.

3. I like Ken Wilber, for example, but does that mean that I cannot
write a critique of him? No, I am in the midst of writing a ten part
rip of his exaggerations. And knowing Wilber as I do, I know that he
will see it as an opportunity to either rip me back or clarify his
thought. We are both served in the process.

I even like Da Free John's writings (amazing, huh!), but I also
think he is a scum bag (read Scott Lowe's essay for why I would
contemplate such "negative" ideas about him). That's why I wrote
"distinguishing the message from the medium."

One can be a follower of any religion and still retain their
discriminating edge and their critical faculties.

4. To be frank, I don't think you really know my "entire" career
(geez, I don't know it myself), but if that makes you happy then go
ahead and say such things. All I can do is to suggest that you read
THE ENCHANTED LAND or any list of articles that are on my website.
Or maybe drop by one of my classes. Better yet, go surfing..... 

In any case, I like your rips because they allow me the opportunity
to add further clarification.....

Only one problem: Jesse Helms might get insulted being connected to
me, given that I am an agent of the Kal forces according to
Eckankar's official memos.....


the redmonk, the kal agent, and Jesse Helms' lost son (oops, that's
Anton Levay's love child)

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.