Lane's Biases 101

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar
Publication date: 1996

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


I want to help your critique of me. In order to do that, I need to
give you some accurate information about Eckankar and their legal
threats against me. You state that I am still angry at Eckankar for
a lawsuit they threatened back in 1983. This is completely untrue
and I was surprised that you would say it.

Eckankar first threatened me with a lawsuit back in 1977 via Alan
Nichols for writing a term paper on Paul Twitchell. After a couple
of attorney volleys back and forth, Eckankar backed down.

However, they then proceeded to sue Jim Peebles, an Eckist and a
classmate of mine (whom I quoted in my text; can't sue Lane, but
let's go after one of our own--smear by association?) for a million
dollars. Pretty hefty sum, especially when you consider that all
Peebles did was write a short (ten pages plus) term paper and give
(listen carefully) "one" xerox copy of it to an old professor friend
of his at L.A. Baptist College.

That "one" xerox copy led Eckankar (who had Mike Noe, then in
get "one" copy of it) to sue Ed Gruss,
Jim Peebles, and L.A. Baptist college for a million dollars.

That, if anything, got me a bit pissed, because I felt sorry for
young Jim Peebles. He really believed in Eckankar and he did not
write his term paper against Eckankar. In fact, we both gave two
presentations at CSUN: I was critical of Eckankar and he was pro
Eckankar. Talk about ironies. His term paper was "nice"; my was more
pointed. Jim Peebles only left after he was "attacked" via a nasty
lawsuit by Eckankar. Go figure.

The 1983 lawsuit was nothing in comparison. Eckankar wanted to sue
for lots of things, but once they realized I was being represented
by a major law firm (for free, by the way) Eckankar then simply
focused on trying to get me to not use the "EK" symbol (which had a
no smoking sign over it) on future editions of the book. 

Eckankar even allowed me to sell the remaining stock which contained
the EK symbol. All I agreed to do was not use the EK symbol again on a
cover. That's it. Eckankar then dropped the suit. They spent
thousands; my attorneys spent thousands. 

I spent nothing. I was not angry at Eckankar because of

Indeed, I actually enjoy doing research on Eckankar, and as Dodie
Bellamy's article on the net will show, I am not angry with Eckists,
or Paul Twitchell, etc.

I just happen to believe that a "God-man" should be as honest as a
milk-man. I can't help it if the founder of Eckankar, Paul
Twitchell, is (to quote Paul's own brother-in-law, Paul Iverlet), "a
notorious liar."

I don't mind being ripped, but if you want to rip me even better in
the future just have me check your facts and insinuations first.

That way, I can be properly flamed.

P.S. I find it a bit ironic that you are taking Mike to task for his
statements (out of context, to be sure), when that is exactly what
Raphael has done himself with Sri Harold Klemp and the various

Mike has simply asked for a very high standard. I mean the best way
to disprove a skeptic is to take one of his tests and prove him/her

Why not read that "number code" that Mike has in his office/house?

Geez, I would be impressed if somebody would astral travel and read
my tire pressure for me on my Nissan Sentra?

That way, both the believer and the skeptic are served.

Instead nobody tries to do the very experiment that would amaze the
"Amazing" Randi.

Hmm, no wonder Sagan and crew find the paranormal to be filled with
pseudo-scientific claptrap.

They want to be disproven.

Gosh, I want to be disproven (Any documents on Sudar yet?)

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.