I have admired and learned from Bo and Sita Lozoff for many years, and find the article on Bo and the HKF heartbreaking and disappointing. If the allegations are true, I hope that Bo will do some long overdue, honest soul-searching. The rules applied to those he works with must apply to him, too. He does not get a special dispensation to flaunt morality and ethics, and ignore the harm he may have done to many people. If the allegations are false, I hope the truth will come out. However, your paragraph about Neem Karoli Baba was shockingly inaccurate and misleading. I have read the book you cited, "Miracle of Love," many times and there is nothing in the book about Neem Karoli Baba engaging in sexual behavior with his followers--quite the opposite, in fact. I have read three books about Baba written by his close followers, and apparently Baba was careful to protect his women devotees from anything unseemly or improper. Neem Karoli Baba lived in traditional Indian society, where the culture was conservative and women's virtue was important. Baba seems to have enforced these cultural rules very strictly. Your statement that he "sheltered criminals" is wildly misleading. And the reference to abuse is impossible to understand unless put in context. Neem Karoli Baba's "abuse" was apparently playful, short-lived and good-humored, and constituted a running joke among his followers. I believe that it is wrong to compare Bo's alleged behavior with the stories of Neem Karoli Baba--there is no comparison. The two are almost complete opposites. (Miracle of Love was not a biography, either. It is a collection of anecdotes about Neem Karoli Baba and not the story of his life, which is still unknown to a great extent.) Please, if you want to make comparisons like this, read the book and know what you are talking about. You have given a false impression of Neem Karoli Baba, who would probably be deeply disappointed with Bo if the allegations are true. Your entire paragraph on Neem Karoli Baba should be thrown out.

Amala, you’re correct to characterize “Miracle of Love” as a collection of anecdotes, which collectively function as a portrait of Neem Karoli Baba. Ram Dass, who considers Baba his guru, compiled roughly 300 pages of anonymous accounts from Baba’s devotees, and inserted his own commentary throughout. The author describes Baba’s “long history” of “association with dacoits, or robbers,” whom he cared for and visited in jail. Dass also characterizes Baba’s abuse of devotees as “playful,” and provides examples of Baba forcing devotees to eat, or fast, in conflicting or confusing sequence; falsely accusing his devotees of theft; and forcibly arranging, and dissolving, marriages between strangers.

In the chapter, “Krishna Play,” Dass compiles accounts of sexual encounters between Baba and his devotees, including several passages about the spiritual teacher “holding” and “sucking” his devotee’s breasts, “pulling” women’s hands under his blanket and “making” them massage his thighs, and “doing things with women for whom the sexual part of their lives was not straight.” He writes that with women, Baba “seemed frequently to assume roles like that of Krishna (one of the forms of God in the Hindu pantheon), as child and playmate and lover.” He adds that, “for the women devotees who were directly involved with Maharajji in this way, his actions served as a catalyst to catapult them to God.”

In “This Life-Changing Challenge Upon Us,” the letter Lozoff wrote to select community members in 2002 (see PDF attached to article), Lozoff describes a similar interaction with women, and says he received the “darshan” (or beholding, and blessing) of both Baba and Lord Krishna:

“At least two women had multiple orgasms with God, sitting alone in front of their altars, in meditation, after my work with their sexual energies. Like it or not, life is not just thoughts and psychology and opinions. These energies are very real, and they were coursing through me for months on end. During that time, I had darshan of my Guru and of Lord Krishna Himself—the one form of God in world spiritual literature who takes the form of sexual lover to women.”

This is not an allegation nor anecdotal, it is fact. I was a tremendous admirer of Bo Lozoff, the Prison Ashram Project and Kindness House. I met him and the staff in 1996 and began volunteering regularly as I revered their simple lifestyle, devotion to service and spiritual practices very deeply. Shortly after I began volunteering Bo created a Spiritual Order that I became a novice and then member of. I did not take the precepts, requirements or vows lightly and was delighted to have found a structured, accountable mechanism to give my spiritual life a greater emphasis. The years passed and my involvement with Kindness House, the Project and Bo increased. They were my spiritual family, my dear friends, and the few people I knew who were really ‘walking the talk’. Bo became my friend and spiritual advisor; I had many private meetings with him and was comforted by his wisdom and easy accessibility. In fall of 2002 I began dating a woman who I had met while volunteering at Kindness House. Within a very short period of time I discovered that she had been involved with Bo sexually and romantically. I couldn’t believe this, I was crushed, outraged, in a state of utter disbelief. I had known him and his wife Sita for many years now and was in complete shock. Then I began to see the madness begin to unravel.

In the weeks following there was a major ‘damage control’ effort prompted by Bo and endorsed by the board. How this was all sacred, spiritual and mysterious. Classic story-spinning that I didn’t see then but am hip to now. I discovered that Sita was aware of this and that there had been other women whom he had been with, secretly. I went on to marry this woman in haste despite a resounding amount of information that suggested I might want to wait. I look back now and see that I was in a haze of naivety and spiritual hypnosis. I take full responsibility for this. I was an adult and no one had a gun to my head. I relinquished a tremendous amount of my power to that man and I own up to every cell I gave away.

My now new wife continued to desire to volunteer at Kindness House weekly despite my strong feelings against it. Many months later I discovered that Bo had been making romantic advances towards her and on at least one occasion it was sexual in nature. This was my friend, the director of the Spiritual Order of which I was deeply involved with, he knew me very well, we had known each other for years.

I never heard a word. Not a peep. From him or any member of The Board. No ‘oops-a-daisy’ or ‘sorry, buddy, no hard feelings’. Nothing. These acts are not, in and of themselves, inexcusable or irreparable. But what is excruciatingly violating and traumatizing is the silence that follows. Bo had no accountability for his actions to me whatsoever. And, perhaps even more frightening, no accountability to the board either. I mean, c’mon, who’s runnin’ this show?!

It’s now nearly 6 years later and my marriage has all but dissolved. I don’t want to imply that Bo is the sole reason but I have never been able to put that incident behind me. My wife was then, and is now, an adult, and no one was forcing her to do anything either; but our choices were clouded to say the least. I’m trying to trust my life and God as best I can. I hope someone or something can help Bo. I hope I can open my heart and trust again.

Thank you for explaining the source of your information about Neem Karoli Baba. However, it seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you may have taken the information out of context, worded it so that it is as sensational as possible, and misinterpreted at least some of it. For instance, in the article you say that Neem Karoli Baba (NKB) "sheltered criminals." This is not the same as visiting them in jail or ministering to them, which is apparently what you should have said. In the books I have read, NKB reformed many criminals. Again, in those books, NKB did arrange marriages, because that is the tradition in which he lived. Parents asked him to arrange marriages, and in Indian tradition, the couple often don't meet until the wedding day. NKB's "abuse" needs to be put in context, which you have not done in the article. I believe that what you have written can be easily misconstrued.

As for making people eat--this is also a strong part of the tradition in India. Receiving food that has been blessed by a saint, "prasad," is a great blessing to the receiver. Making people eat was a form of loving and blessing them, and if you have been to India you will understand that hunger has been a cause of great suffering there among the poor. NKB ministered to the poor with no regard to caste. He wanted to feed people above all, and urged his followers to feed people, both to relieve their suffering and to give them a blessing. NKB was always giving away more than food--clothing, blankets, cooking pots, money--to the poor who came to him in desperation. He paid for medical care for those who had no money. Religious festivals where hundreds or thousands of people are fed for free, are also a long-standing tradition in India, and NKB held many of these "bhandaras." Again, you have not put any of these things in context, and they can be misunderstood because of that.

I have not read "Miracle of Love" for many long years, so I will go back and reread it, and pay attention to the chapter you have cited. I suspect that again, you may have taken things out of context and confounded the issues. If you have not read about NKB before now, this may be understandable, but it does not help to clarify the issues at hand.

I have read three other books about NKB, all written by his close Indian followers who spent years with him. None of the anecdotes were anonymous, as you say they were in "Miracle of Love," and none of them were like anything that you have cited from "Miracle of Love." Thus, I was shocked to read what you wrote about NKB. If you want to learn more, read the two books by Dada Mukherjee.

However, these questions about what NKB did with his devotees are missing the point. He was a great Indian saint who died 35 years ago and cared for people living in a traditional culture. The issue at hand seems to be whether Bo behaved inappropriately with the people he worked with, whether he harmed people, and whether he should have known better and acted differently. I suppose that another question is how to heal the aftermath. For all this, we need to put things in the context of our culture and modern times. Many ordinary people have had the darshan of a deceased guru, or the vision of a saint or their saviour, and that may mean that they have great faith, but it does not automatically make them enlightened enough to behave in the ways that Bo is alleged to have done. Many people have experienced intense kundalini energy, but that does not change their responsibility to act in a humble, respectful and compassionate way with others, and this is even more important when the others are subordinates. There are many ways to share healing energy without engaging in sexual acts and without physical contact--of course--even when the intention is to heal sexual blocks. The same goal can be achieved in safe, respectful ways. All the great spiritual traditions emphasize the importance of humility, self-restraint, self-honesty, and compassion, and warn of the dangers for the person who indulges in power trips, which usually turn into long detours from the true path, and may never lead back to the path. This is, in fact, one of the themes of the Ramayana, which Bo has studied for years.

Bill Wagner says "This is not an allegation nor anecdotal, it is fact."

FYI, that actually was anecdotal.

John D, could you let us know what you are referring to? Thanks.

I was referring to Bill saying that his post was not anecdotal, that's all. Technically speaking, it was anecdotal. Check out www.dictionary.com and type in anecdotal.

Wednesday's article in Front Porch on Bo Lozoff and the Human Kindness Foundation begs for comment. As a practitioner of a spiritual path (Tibetan Buddhism), and as a former counselor in a halfway house for parolees, I have some background to speak of these matters. I am also acquainted with Bo and HKF, having visited Kindness House on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, sex scandals are par for the course in spiritual communities, not to mention the cover stories in supermarket magazines and the tabloids. It doesn’t tell us so much about the individuals involved as it does about the deeply conflicted and hypocritical attitudes that so many Americans have about sex. And this story comes perilously close to tabloid journalism – albeit a politically correct version. It would be nearly impossible for your readers to grasp the immensity and difficulty of the task he set himself, which only a true bodhisattva (someone who works for the benefit of others) would even attempt. In the process he has provided wisdom and comfort to tens of thousands of prisoners in the American gulag. His is the oldest and most effective prison meditation project in the country. But he is no saint and never pretended to be. He’s only human. I hope that his friends and supporters in this community will have the courage and integrity not to turn their backs on him now that the wind blows ill. He is a local treasure. We could forgive him his trespasses, whatever they may be, and be proud of him. I am.

I have been following a contemplative path for over 35 years, and I have, in the course of my involvement with various spiritual organizations, and particularly my own, of course, seen this kind of situation arise again and again. We are all human beings, and we all do incredibly stupid things, even our teachers. The question is, where is the dividing line between what we might choose to overlook and what ought NOT to be overlooked. As a psychologist, when reading about Bo Lozoff, I was struck by the similarity between his demonstrated personality characteristics and that of the "textbook" antisocial personality, as clinically described. The antisocial personality is invariably an extremely powerful and charismatic personality, and believes that he (and statistically, it is usually a 'he') is somehow "above" the rest of the crowd, that the usual rules of conduct don't apply to him. He is therefore free to act in unusual ways, and others ought to accept this, as he is considered to be superior in some way. Bo Lozoff's behavior is a clear demonstration of the danger we put ourselves in when we make a "guru" of anyone. In such a relationship, we submit to an uneven power balance, and when the relationship is a male/female one, that balance becomes even greater. Healing from such a travesty is invariably an extremely difficult proceess, though, because ultimately there are two participants in any such situation, even if one is in the one-down position. Thus, in order to come to terms with what has happened, we must face our own darkness. When we give that power to a so-called teacher, we must ask ourselves why we would ever want to do so. I believe we are all teachers to each other, but one of my many "teachers"--Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan--said that the way to know if someone is a "real" teacher is whether or not they attempt to coerce you in any fashion. If they do, they're not a real teacher. Like others, I have a few issues about the sensationalism of this story, and the poorly-contexted anecdotes therein, but I believe it can serve as a wake-up call to all of us who want to take the easy way out by giving our power to those who don't deserve it.

Most of this article is very poorly researched and full of innuendo. The people quoted were taken in by Bo and HKF fresh out of prison, when most people, myself included, would probably not even speak to them on the street, much less let them in to our homes. These few ex-cons may be proving us right by their vindictive attacks on Bo. I remember when one of them was kicked out of the community because he couldn't get along. He made death threats and also vowed to bring HKF down. Did Matt find out about any of that? Bo has good qualities and bad ones like we all do, but he is not the beast described in this article. The Independent can, obviously, print whatever it wants, but as a reader I would expect the facts to be checked. Next time I see Matt Saldana's byline I will skip that article, or read it with skepticism.

Read the full transcript of Matt Saldaña's interview with Bo Lozoff (PDF, 278 KB):
http://www.indyweek.com/pdf/082708/BoLozoffTranscript.pdf

While we knew this would be a much sought-after issue, particularly in Orange County, hundreds of copies of this week's issue have, ahem, "gone missing" in Hillsborough. I'd like to think this is an increase in pickup, but it's also quite possible that these papers were stolen. If so, that's not very enlightened. If you see an Indy box or rack that needs restocking, please call 286-1972, ext. 134 and leave a message with the location.

To Jeanne Dellinger: I agree with part of what you wrote, but a portion of the people quoted or referred to were volunteers, not ex-prisoners.

Sopachochog, I agree with you completely that Bo and Sita have helped thousands around the world through their decades of hard work and dedication. They have definitely saved lives and helped turn lives around. They are a treasure, and they deserve appreciation and honor for all they have done. But I think trespasses should not simply be forgiven if they have hurt others. Several people have come forward to say that they have been hurt, and that the wounds are deep and lasting. It does not seem that these people have suffered because they are hypocritical about sex. And instances of anger and bullying were described. Something should be done to heal these wounds, even if all that can be done is to bring these stories into the light of day. We can also support and love everyone involved, on all sides of the issue, and encourage them to learn from the experience. I don't feel that good works, even the tremendous dedication of Bo and Sita, should simply excuse an act that harms another. We can honor the work and support the continuation of the work, and still deal with the trespass. As Neem Karoli Baba said, "Do what you must with people, but never shut them out of your heart." I revere Bo and Sita for their lifelong dedication and the way they have helped and inspired so many, but I do not excuse what has been alleged, either. I feel sadness and compassion for everyone involved, including Bo, Sita, and the HKF board.

To Matt and the editors: Why were Bo, Sita and Catherine given so little time to respond to all the allegations? It seems from the interview that you were rushing them. You gave them less than five days, after preparing yourself for weeks or months.

They were contacted on a Monday and given until the end of the week. Five days is adequate time. The original interview was set, at their request, on a Thursday. They moved it to a Tuesday.

Lisa, I read the interview. It seems that they had, at the most, four days, since you called them Monday afternoon. They had four days to do the interview with you, and then formulate their own response. They talked about not having enough time to contact other people who worked with them, and then refer you to the people who were willing to talk with you. This seems very strange to me--what was the rush? It does not seem fair, since you spent--how long--months? preparing.

We called on Monday; gave them until Friday. They chose Tuesday. I don't know what else to tell you. In the dozens and dozens of controversial, heated interviews I've conducted over the years, I can't think of one that had more than one week's notice. Daily newspapers call people for comment on difficult issues every day with no notice.

Reading the full transcript of the interview, I felt that at several points Matt was asking inappropriate questions, pushing for a specific answer, and was prejudiced, because he had not done sufficient research on the Prison Ashram Project and did not have a good understanding of the workings of the Project. It made me wonder whether he was prejudiced about other points. I don't know the truth in this, but it did raise red flags. I think it might have been better if he had visited the Project when volunteers were working there, to see the daily work and understand the demands and expenses of processing the large mail volume and sending out books.

That's what journalists do--push for, even demand specific answers. Bo is media-savvy, having been on the radio and interviewed by many, many publications; it's not like we were dealing with someone who'd never been interviewed before. Matt had read Bo's books and newsletters and conducted other intense research. I don't see how watching people process mail would have changed anything. I'm signing off.

I was only saying that this type of article, having so much untruth and using such unreliable sources, makes it hard to dig down to the truth. I'm not Bo's biggest fan, and I'm not defending the specific actions he's accused of, but people deserve fair trials, either in court or in the media. If Matt had actually read the same newsletter that I read about The Secret, he would have seen that Bo neither compared himself to Jesus or "accused Oprah of being Satan". The comment about good works not excusing bad behavior is absolutely right, but bad behavior doesn't excuse bad journalism, either.

I do not intend to post more than this one posting, as you can imagine this is a difficult time for me and everyone I know and work with. Below is something I am sending to interested parties, but first let me just say to some of the posters -- Amala and Eklutna particularly -- I wish you would be a little more skeptical of what The Indy has said about me especially when it is so clear to you, Amala, how slanted and unfair they have been in their remarks about Neem Karoli Baba, about how little time they gave us to respond, etc. You seem to have faulted them for everything except their portrayal of me as an abusive bully. Eklutna, your comparison of me with a clinically anti-social personality is hurtfully irresponsible when your entire source of information is this article. It is insulting to the other posters who at least know I am a real person who has been constructively involved in humanitarian work for almost 40 years. You act as though I have been fooling people for that long. Might that be a teeny bit arrogant and reckless?

My only post follows:

BO’S RESPONSE

Hello Friends,

Obviously, Human Kindness Foundation and I are shocked and hurt by the recent cover story in The Independent titled “The Two Faces of Bo Lozoff.” Even among us, we do not agree on all the details of specific past memories, events and relationships, but we are absolutely unanimous in saying that the Kindness House and Bo Lozoff the article depicts – bullying, intimidating, abusive, traumatizing, mind-controlling, tyrannical – never existed. We poured our lives into that noble experiment and we accomplished wonderful things there, as well as making mistakes along the way. The atmosphere was very compassionate, centered sincerely around a community life of mutual support and practice.

The article especially tries to paint me as a David Koresh or Jim Jones kind of demagogue who compares myself to Christ and accuses others of being Satan, someone who is really self-isolated and out of touch with reality. I’ve never met that Bo Lozoff, and there’s no way to describe to you what it feels like to read something like that about yourself in a publication that is on newsstands all over your own hometown.

One very twisted and troubled ex-con, and two women from long ago who took offense at me, were the driving forces behind this article, and it amazes me to this day that they held and nursed their grudges for so many years and successfully convinced a few other people to corroborate their claims of bullying and abuse. I know the claims of sexual abuse are the most titillating and disturbing because of where we are as a society, but I will address those last because the other allegations of the article are extremely simple and uncontroversial:

• It is entirely, 100% false that I bullied ex-cons (who were mostly twice my size) or humiliated or berated them or treated them in any uncompassionate way. Quite the contrary, I was there for them night or day, and often had arguments with other HKF staff who felt we needed to kick someone out because they were dangerous or incorrigible. Sometimes to a fault, putting the community at risk, I never gave up on the core goodness of anyone.

• It is entirely, 100% false that I or anyone else intimidated or threatened ex-cons with going back to prison. In thirteen years, we never sent anyone back to prison even though several ex-cons caused serious damage to our community life, and one, Kevin Dessert, actually threatened to murder Catherine Miller and her husband. This was a real threat, yet I convinced the Millers not to call the sheriff because I felt we could handle him without his having to go back to prison. Kevin is now one of the primary sources of the Indy article. He is still living in a house I built, earning his livelihood from a trade he learned at Kindness House. Kevin has some serious psychological damage from spending many years in prison, and we were naïve about the extent of that damage. He used to brag to us that his manipulative behavior had once shut down a very good halfway house run by wonderful people, yet it still never dawned on us to what lengths he might someday go to destroy us as well.

• It is entirely, 100% false that my behavior frightened or betrayed Bruce Thomas or David Timmerman, the other two ex-cons quoted by name in the article. Kevin is a master of manipulation, and I have no idea how he got Bruce and David to say those things, but the truth is, Bruce actually turned to me for support and guidance for many years after leaving Kindness House in 1999, and Bruce even moved back into Kindness House twice – once for six months – long after the “traumatic” tuning that he describes in the article. David and I never had a cross word during his stay at Kindness House, and I was his most trusted confidant during his many problems with other community members and staff. Again, David kept in touch for years after leaving, and visited Kindness House several times as a welcome friend of the community. This total rewriting of history is chilling to me. We have loved, respected, and helped Bruce and David for years. No one in our organization has been unkind to them for a moment.

• It is entirely, 100% false that I ever compared myself to Jesus or “accused Oprah of being Satan.” These outrageous assertions didn’t come from the Kindness House sources, they are the reporter’s own deceptive attempt to paint me as a cult figure. The reporter found two newsletters six years apart, in the first of which, “Much Ado About Silence,” I repeatedly remarked that I was no great sage and my year of silence was nothing so earth-shaking. I also said many people had been offended by the idea of my spending a year in silence, and at the very end of the article I said that sometimes our own friends or families seem to be against the spiritual practices we feel called to perform, and there’s nothing unusual about that. I said it even happened to Jesus when he returned to Bethlehem, and I quoted, “A prophet is not without honor save in his own home.” No one reading that article would ever come away with the impression I compared myself to Jesus. The entire theme of the article was just the opposite – that I am no one extraordinary, and even a year in total silence is not such a big deal.

Then six years later, in 2007, I wrote “The Real Secret is a Dark One,” about the book/DVD called “The Secret,” which had been featured on an Oprah show as well as in numerous churches and spiritual centers and virtually every media outlet known to man. I mentioned Oprah’s name three times in the article, merely factual references to it being on her show. I then gave an academic comparison between the teachings of “The Secret” and Anton LaVey’s “Satanic Principles” from the Church of Satan. I said the religion “The Secret” most parallels is actually Satanism, and went point for point explaining my reasons for saying that. Nowhere did I link Oprah to Satanism or say anything disrespectful about her or the other media people who helped popularize “The Secret” with sincere conviction that it was a good philosophy. In fact, this past year, Oprah used quotes from my writings twice on her worldwide daily inspiration website. I take extreme offense at the Independent inventing an outright lie that I “accused Oprah of being Satan.” It was said solely to make me sound like a madman, and it is entirely false.

• It is entirely, 100% false that our weekly tunings were meetings “in which Lozoff would face the group in the meditation hall, discuss religious texts and, according to former community members, ridicule and assert his authority over ex-offenders.” The weekly tunings were simply community meetings which are a necessary facet of virtually any community structure. We sat in a circle and we often used the traditional “talking stick” method that means if someone had something to say and did not wish to be interrupted or argued with, he or she could pick up the talking stick and no one, including myself, could speak until they put the stick back in the circle. The article’s description of tunings is just gossip and grumblings of the silliest variety. We were a community composed of uniquely diverse people, some with tremendous adjustments to make from living fifteen or twenty years in brutal prisons, and of course conversations would sometimes get heated or gripes would arise. The need for goodwill was constantly stressed in any community gathering and the tunings were times where a lot of growth and struggle occurred between people living together in goodwill and good faith. Did I have more authority than others in those meetings? Of course I did. I was the director of the community. And in fact, at one point I felt my authority inhibited others from finding their own voices, and so I stopped attending tunings for at least a year. Neither myself nor anyone else at HKF has come remotely close to fitting the image of swaggering authority figures who bully others. It is 100% opposite of who we are and have always been.

• It is not 100% false that I yelled at people. About once or twice a year on average, I lost my temper and chewed someone out very intensely. Many recovery programs scream and yell every night. Living and dealing with ex-cons, addicts, lifelong manipulators, etc., sometimes compassion is not pretty, sometimes love is the “tough love” variety. Community life is intense and our community members were intense people. There is no set formula for how to handle the countless situations that arise. I have never had a routine pattern of yelling at people, I have never used screaming as a control mechanism, I have never threatened or attacked anyone. I occasionally yelled at someone in the context of living and working with them and being responsible for the welfare of a dozen or more people all going through different life changes. It is entirely false to characterize that as my “style” or as bullying, intimidating, or “invoking (my) wrath.” That is total, utter nonsense. I almost wish some of the ex-cons had been a little more afraid of invoking my wrath! They walked all over us many times. The entire tone of that portrayal of me is false, concocted by a very few people who fully know how inaccurate it is, especially Bruce Thomas, who has probably never been treated with more kindness, respect, love, and patience in his life than I displayed toward him for almost ten years.

• The financial article after the main article is a pathetic attempt at innuendo because the reporter scoured our books and personal financial records dating all the way back to 1980, and could not find a single item that could be interpreted as unethical. So instead of giving up, he crafted extremely inaccurate personal and organizational transactions together and contacted the NC Nonprofit Center for vague critical remarks like “that’s unusual but not necessarily unethical,” or “that’s unhealthy.” Be clear, he desperately wanted to find something specific HKF has done wrong and could find nothing at all in the entire history of our existence. We devote ourselves generously and fully to our work, and my wife and I have always lived without air-conditioning in small passive-solar cabins that I designed and built. The Independent refused our requests to visit our headquarters to take a look at how we operate and how my wife and I live. They would not set foot on our grounds.

• Finally, it is not 100% false that I touched some women sexually. It is 100% false that I ever abused or coerced anyone or held power or authority over anyone’s head or anything like that. I am a gentle man and my sexuality is gentle as well. Sexuality is perhaps the hottest cultural button and most difficult topic to discuss in a sensitive way, and I feel daunted and humiliated having to attempt this in such a crude forum as this response to the Indy’s character assassination of me. The sexual allegations are distorted and purposely slanted against me exactly like the bullying and intimidation allegations. I don’t have the heart to go line by line to try to defend or explain myself.

What I will point out is that I never had intercourse with any of the women the article refers to. Read the article carefully, past the hazy picture it tries to paint of “sexual relationships,” and you will see it never actually claims I went to bed with anyone, it just implies it. The vast majority of what I called unconventional sexual behavior in those years involved a gentle touch or kiss or working along the spine with someone’s energy centers, or sometimes just holding someone intimately in silence. It wasn’t usually about my gratification or even about my body parts. When a woman was startled or offended, I immediately backed off. A clear majority of the women I touched in those ways felt grateful for the encounter. The same exact behavior left a few women confused or uncertain, and a few clearly offended, and I completely understand that. It happens in my lectures as well. The same words which inspire a hundred, offend a few. I tried to speak intelligently about this with the reporter but he wasn’t interested in nuance or intelligence, he was interested in selecting only the words of mine that would further his agenda of portraying me as a lecherous despot. If I were a lecherous despot, I could have slept with a lot of women!

The truth is, I have been sincerely exploring the tricky subject of sexual energy for many years and like most people, have no clear answers. Though the article mentions it in a hostile, almost mocking way, I did indeed have some extraordinarily powerful mystical experiences during the Kindness House years and they added to my confusion and significantly affected my sexual energy. These were not kooky or self-deluded experiences, but by their nature, mystical experiences do not lend themselves well to description or explanation in secular terms. There were times when I was celibate, times I was monogamous, and times when I was neither.

Though the sources of this article scoured the nation looking for women to accuse me of sexual abuse, the worst accusations they could convince a few women to make were about kissing and touching. The one local woman whose photo appears in the article from behind, is the only person with whom I actually had a complex and very painful romantic relationship. Still no intercourse, but a lot of mutual sexual behavior that I have already publicly acknowledged was painful and confusing to us both and to my family and our community. We lived in intense community together, it caused a major disruption in our community life and my family life, and we dealt with it as honorably as we could. She and Sita and I especially worked through a lot of pain together and came out of it as friends.

Long after it had ended, she became engaged to one of our volunteers, and they chose to have their wedding at Kindness House. She gave a little speech at her wedding about all the good I had done in her life. There was goodwill between us. She continued coming to community events for some time, though her husband (whom she was not involved with at all during our relationship) felt very negative about our history together, and wanted no part of us. Slowly she began reperceiving the past, and after about a year she decided to cut ties with us. We have reached out to her and her husband several times to restore goodwill between us in the past several years but they have not responded.

• The one area of blame I accept fully and feel tremendous shame and remorse for has nothing to do with bullying men or abusing women, which are the two main themes of the article. I was never a bully or an abuser. But I did allow the inevitable secrecy and denial that built up around my private meetings with women, and such secrecy is poison to any community life and to a marriage and family. My sexual behavior didn’t rip the community apart, my secrecy and defensiveness and deception did. I should have either stopped being unconventional in my meetings with women, or I should have been open about the fact that I was. Instead, I did what I considered were honorable things, within a dishonorable context of secrecy. I do not feel I touched women in a dishonorable way. I see the Divine Feminine in nearly every female and I am in awe of it. But it was dishonorable to expect such intimate touching to be kept a secret within the intense goldfish bowl of community life as well as my marriage. I occupied incompatible positions. It was an impossible mix, and I am deeply sorry for the pain and confusion it caused. Believe me, I have paid and am still paying an enormous price for these wrongs.

I was naïve to be honest and plain-spoken with Matt Saldana about all of this, not realizing how he would twist and turn and highlight my own words to damn me. Now I understand why so many people say “no comment.” Sexuality and affairs of the heart are extremely delicate issues for us all, and it is truly humiliating and counter-productive to air them in such a crude way as the Independent has done.

Kindness House was a unique community that bit off an enormous task of living fulltime with men and women from all walks of life, including some straight out of twenty years or more in brutal prisons. Neither I nor Human Kindness Foundation had anything to gain from the crushing challenge of running such a community. Sita and I gave up our family home; we lived, ate, worked and practiced with that group of ex-cons and others with zero time off. It was pure service at great personal cost, and overall we all did amazing things there that inspired visitors and residents from all over the globe. The Independent spent months talking to the few accusers and then gave us four days to respond, and limited us to a maximum of three to four people to contact them with good things to say about us. They only quoted two of the four, and one of those two, Katrina Holley, they quoted out of context to make her sound like a gullible fool.

The Independent has been rude and hostile toward us in every interaction, their minds set in stone that we are a harmful cult led by an unscrupulous demagogue. We are not, and I am not, and this is nothing approaching good or even ethical journalism. I am not perfect or infallible and I have never claimed to be. I have made painful mistakes and am truly sorry about them and have paid dearly for them. But instead of an intelligent analysis, the Indy made up its mind and took the lowest road to paint a picture that is 100% false in its hues, colors and tones of me and HKF. We have never abused people, finances, property or anything else. We are an honest nonprofit dedicated to helping the world be a better place.

I don’t know what else I can say in a concise way. This is quite an upsetting education in the power of the press.

I am personally out of state in retreat now and have no idea when or if I will be back. I feel my hometown and good name have been ripped from me by the Indy and a few vengeful souls. I am a person of faith, so I absolutely trust that God knows what is going on and it is part of my path into the Great Mystery. I do trust that path even if it leads me through painful and lonely times. I pray for everyone’s healing and spiritual growth, and am doing a lot of spiritual practice to prevent bitterness or outrage from clouding my own heart. It’s not an easy process right now but I am committed to radical goodwill, radical lovingkindness, and I will not yield to anything less. When I think of these few people who teamed up to cause this much pain, I remember Saint Steven shouting “Father, please don’t hold this against them!,” about the people who were stoning him to death, and am humbled to my soul. I know I can’t hold anything against anyone if I want to continue the journey my life has been about since I was a child. I assure you I am striving mightily to rise to this occasion and find the peace of pure faith.

Bo Lozoff

Bo, in response to your words above, don't be too sure I don't know you through other sources and other people. These could include friends, clients, and even people mentioned in this article;even those who preferred to remain anonymous. I have read your words, as well. Let me point out, however, that I did not "diagnose" you in any way, merely drew a comparison, one that could be made of many self-styled teachers. To say "I never called myself a teacher" makes not the slightest difference: if you've hurt people, you've hurt people. You've hurt people, Bo, and I do not see one single ounce of real regret for any of that, only self-serving "I'm a wild and crazy kind of guy" statements. Maybe it's time to grow up? Because if you really aren't a false prophet, why on earth are you hurting what might be truly creditable and meaningful work?

Having read the article and comments, including Mr. Lozoff's, I have a couple of thoughts. I do not think that the article paints Mr. Lozoff as badly as he thinks, as it does note on several occasions that he's done good and important work over the years. However, the parts that were not about his sexual improprieties with women did have the feel of having come from one or two people with a grudge and were not well supported. If hundreds of ex-cons, many with troubled personal histories and countless issues stemming from their incarceration, did stay at Kindness House, it would be shocking if the Independent couldn't find a bunch who were unable to discipline themselves there (or anywhere) and had had bad experiences at least partly of their own making. If Mr. Dessert was a primary source and Mr. Lozoff's assertions about him and the other male sources are correct, it makes me question much of that part of the article. The sections about the sexual improprieties were much more disturbing to me, and I am not satisfied by Mr. Lozoff's response. Call me ignorant, but vulnerable women may not grasp the subtle nuances of his approach or his excuse, and intercourse is not required for sexual harassment, emotional manipulation, psychological abuse etc.. I have worked on several hotlines and can tell you that the lines for people on the receiving end are often pretty blurry, and someone in his position of power should have avoided getting even close to them. He has enough experienced with damaged people to understand their fragility, whether ex-cons or volunteers, and should have known better. The story should have been written and is a good cautionary tale, but in the end I'm left with too many unanswered questions.

A quick word on sources. In the above post, Bo Lozoff referred to a “few people who teamed up to cause this much pain.” I spoke to at least 17 sources with direct knowledge of Kindness House (and over 25 sources in total), including the five women whose sexual encounters with Lozoff he confirmed in our interview. Volunteers and ex-offenders spoke, on the record, about their direct experiences at Kindness House, and we used no anonymous sources or second-hand material. (We did offer confidentiality for several sources, out of concern for their safety, yet reserved the right to quote them fully. See editor’s note for a full explanation.) With the exception of the group interview with Bo Lozoff, Sita Lozoff and Catherine Miller, we spoke to everyone independently of other sources, and we did not participate in, nor did we view, any kind of “team” effort against Lozoff. Instead, we made every effort to independently confirm information, while protecting our sources, which you can view in the full interview with Lozoff (See PDF, which we have posted as a courtesy, in response to Lozoff’s charge that I “twist[ed] and turn[ed] and highlight[ed] [his] own words to damn” him. There will be typos, which we cleaned up in the story.)

In that 2.5 hour interview, we gave Lozoff and the Human Kindness Foundation co-directors an opportunity to confirm or deny every allegation against Lozoff and the organization he founded. In addition, we followed up on several specific questions with Catherine Miller and Bo Lozoff via e-mail correspondence, which continued for an additional two weeks after the interview. Also during that time, Catherine Miller and Bo Lozoff made an effort to impugn our sources, and pressure the Indy against running the story. Lozoff contacted at least one of the five women who spoke about her sexual encounters with him, by e-mail and phone, in an attempt to make her back down from her story. (She didn’t.) Miller contacted the current employer of at least one source, shortly after the interview, and Lozoff has since accused him of a serious crime (which, if printed, would be libel), in an attempt to undermine his credibility. Despite the risks, this source agreed to let the Indy use his name and photograph in the story. We stand by the information we gathered, and gave Lozoff the opportunity to refute it in a responsible manner.

I feel it necessary to respond to Bo Lozoff's post dated Aug. 30, 2008. While it is purely natural to attempt to discredit your accuser, I can't just stand by and allow Bo to feed the Indy's readers such bold faced lies especially since many of them are directed at me.

The truth is, I had been approached for an interview by a local magazine several times over the last year or so concerning my knowledge and experiences while living and working at Kindness House. I denied the request for a few reasons. The main reason being, the energy behind the interview seemed and felt motivated by revenge and anger. I didn't want any part of that. At some point, the information gathered by the magazine was turned over to the Independent.

I received a call from Matt Saldana in the end of July while I was on vacation in Oregon. Initially, I told Matt that I would have to think about it and that I would get back to him. I believe that I called Matt back within an hour or two and told him that I would do an interview for the Independent. What changed my mind about doing the interview was that the whole energy behind the motive seemed to have shifted from anger and revenge, to exposing Bo and the HKF staff's unethical and soul damaging practices in order to facilitate healing. Healing for Bo, Sita, Catherine Miller, Josh Lozoff and anyone else who felt hurt, abused, victimized or whatever by Bo and/or his staff and/or board of directors.

Personally, I wasn't much affected by the goings on at Kindness House while I was there. In comparison to the environment that I grew up in and the subsequent lifestyle that my upbringing led me to, enduring what went on at Kindness House for 2 1/2 years was nothing for me. Bo never intimidated me. In fact, he only yelled at me once during a staff meeting when I fist got a to Kindness House. When he finished screaming, I calmly looked him in the eyes and said, " what the hell was that about? " He never answered my question but he never yelled at me again. I have though on many occasions seen and/or heard Bo scream at many people in a totally abusive manner. Some were male ex-cons but sad to say, most were female volunteers. He left the women literally shaking with fear and he usually left the male ex-cons seething with anger. This was all done in the presence of Sita and Catherine Miller and never once was Bo ever confronted by Sita and Catherine for this behavior. It was quite the contrary. It was always, " Bo is always right. You should listen to Bo. If Bo did or said it it must be divine guidance. " I saw right through all of this foolishness.

In retrospect, I see that I never fit in at Kindness House because I never put Bo up on any kind of pedestal. I never saw him as anything other than just another sick and suffering human being. He had no hold or control over me. Despite the many ridged rules, I did whatever I wanted to do. Just like Bo, Sita and Catherine did. I drank coffee almost everyday, I drank beer whenever I wanted, I snuck off the property at night once my 90 days were up and I had sex with whomever I chose whenever I chose. I used to tell Bo all the time, " it's not words that teach and guide us but the actions of those we admire and look up to that guide us." So, caught up in the sneakiness, lies and deceptions of Kindness House and it's staff and board of directors, I did exactly what I was being shown. It's not an excuse. It's a fact. The fact that someone could use this as an excuse, is a powerful example of why what went on at Kindness House shouldn't have went on. I confronted Bo about this damaging and hypocritical dynamic on many occasions almost to the point of begging, but neither him or his staff would humble their selves enough to seriously consider it. I was just an ex-con. What did I know. That's the response that I received.

I went to Kindness House because I believed in Bo's work and I am a product of that work. I still believe in the work. Bo always said that one day an ex-con would run the Prison Ashram Project. It's in his familiar reteric and in his literiture. Well, I ask when will this happen? Who will run it after Bo? Why is there not one ex-con on th HKF board of directors? Why is Bo and HKF estranged from EVERY single ex-con that went through Kindness House except one? What in God's name really went on there?

Bo accuses me of making death threats against Catherine Miller and her husband. That is ridiculous! I would have been arrested immediately. The truth of what happened is that I had confronted Bo on all his behaviors and goings on at Kindness House. I confessed to him about my breaking the rules. One particular thing was that my 14 year old son and I took a feral kitten that Catherine and Bo wanted to make into a barn cat, into our cabin to sleep at night. The kitten was kept outside in a cage in the barn in feezing cold weather. The kitten became domesticated and lived with my son and I unbeknown to Bo, Sita and Catherine. However, Catherine's 10 year old son knew about it and he kept it secret. Bo told me that he would keep confidential all of the things we had discussed, but that he felt obligated to tell Catherine about the kitten because it invoved me involving her 10 year old son in a lie and a secret from his mother. Bo convinced me that if he told Catherine, she would be quite angry but it would be best if he told her. I trusted Bo and went along with it.

Catherine wanted to have a meeting as soon as she found out. The plan was for Catherine, Bo, Sita and myself, to meet in Bo and Sita's cabin. This was a Friday night. As soon as we sat down to meet, Catherine Miller said to me, " I want you out of here by next week. " I immediately flipped out. I called Catherine a cold hearted bitch and I told them all off about their blatent double standards and hypocrocy. I told Bo off too. I stood up to leave the meeting, and Bo got between me and the door. I asked him to move. His right hand moved up and I slapped it down intinctively and reflexively. Bo said something like, " you hit me. " I told him that I didn't hit him but that I instinctively blocked his hand from raising and I asked him not to raise his hands to me. He then moved out of my way and I left for my cabin on the lower property.

It just so happen that my son's and I's cabin was next door to the Millers. Bo came down to my cabin a few minutes after the meeting telling me that Catherine wanted to call the sheriff because she was afraid but he convinced her not to. He then told me that I had to leave the next day. I confronted Bo some more on his behavoir and the hypocracy again but all he could say was that it was Catherine's call that I leave. The next day I moved into a place in Chapel Hill owened by one of Bo's friends. A few weeks later, I moved into an apartment in Chapel Hill with my 14 year old son.

After about a year, I contacted Bo saying that I was tired of being bitter. I asked him where could we go from here. It was at this time that Bo emailed me and told me that an ex-resident of Kindness House told him that I said that I was going to break into a neighbor of Kindness House, steal a gun and kill the Millers. This was the first I heard about any such threat. It turns out that Bo received this from a resident who was abusing alcohol and was extremely delusional. Bo's own words in the email was that he never believed that I said that. That was the last I heard about this threat until Bo unfairly used it today to discredit me. Anyone who knows me knows that it is not my style to make such threats. If I walked around living in that attitude, how would I have bean able to stay out of prison for almost six years. There's no way. Plus, if I made this threat and Bo and Catherine thought it was so credible and serious, why did they allow me to move back onto the property after it was in the process of being sold? And, why did they allow me to volunteer reading and delivering mail up until Feruary 2008?

I'm not angry with Bo or anyone else at HKF. I feel bad for Bo and all I want is for him to heal through all this. I didn't manipulate anyone to do this article. I haven't seen or spoken to David Timmerman in years. I never even knew he felt this way about his experieces at Kindness House. I was shocked when I read his name in the article. I didn't manipulate Bruce either. The fact is, Bruce had been trying to get me invloved for months but I refused. I told my story in order to facilitate healing and to bring light to some incredible darkness. I told my story because I cried when some of the woman shared their victimization and exploitation by Bo. Bo won't tell you of the woman who refused to come forward. How many are out there? I know of at least four more.

I didn't learn my trade at Kindness House either. I learned it from my boss who is a very experienced carpenter. We all know what I really learned at Kindness House. It's incredibly shocking to me to see Bo go to such extremes in order to avoid facing his demons. I love Bo and I owe a lot of what I have in my life to the work he has done for prisoners. I would do anything to help him heal. That doesn't mean that I will help him to cover up his negative behaviors and actions. I pray for his healing and for the healing of everyone involved and touched by this whole situation. Bo's back is against the wall and I forgive him for attempting to use me as a way out. I hope one day, Bo, Sita and Catherine Miller find the peace they so long for.

Sincerely, Kevin Dessert

Letter to the Editor: While reading your piece of what I honestly would consider to be tabloid journalism on Bo Lozoff and The Human Kindness Foundation, It is clear that Matt Saldana clearly has an agenda and a point to make. It seems obvious that the slant of this article was chosen from the beginning, and nothing Bo, Sita, Catherine or anyone on their “side” would have said could have made a difference. I live in Durham and visited Kindness House regularly beginning in 1999. I ate dinner there, volunteered, participated in Kirtans and other community events. I continue a friendship with the Lozoffs and have been changed and inspired by Bo’s work on parenting, working on anger, and facing the challenging times we live in with courage and fearlessness. I have known Bo know for a total of 10 years now, and never have I seen the “other face” of the man portrayed in your article. Citing that “Lozoff compares himself to Jesus” and “accused Oprah of being Satan” in his newsletters is an outright and pure distortion of Bo’s writing. As he has already pointed out, anyone may access them at www.humankindness.org to see what they actually said, which was nothing of the sort. Several of your sources for this article had their own motives for saying what they did about Bo. Your bias in their direction is surprising and disturbing. Your “cutting and pasting” of what Bo spoke to you about is obvious as well. .As for the allegations of sexual abuse I felt that Bo’s response on the Indy website said enough. These are serious allegations to make and tread into dangerous waters with following the trend of the tabloids and total privacy invasion. Bo and Sita’s work has been a complex undertaking over the years and has not been without its pitfalls clearly. Yet they remain as some of the greatest people I have ever had the chance to know, and it really breaks my heart to see such a small, tiny and truly uninformed view of Bo’s life on the cover of the Indy. I am disgusted with Matt Saldana and with the Indy on this one. I urge you and your readers to read some of Bo’s work, and to notice the glaring holes in this very poorly investigated article. Anna Van Dis

What I find interesting is that every single post from admirerers of Bo are from people who have visited Kindness House but never lived there. All they saw was what Bo wanted them to see. They really have no clue as to the reallity of what went on there behind closed doors. They speak from total ignorance

Let's here from some people who actually lived there.

Kevin Dessert

First, two disclaimers: --I've known Bo and Sita for more than 20 years, am friends with them, and deeply admire their work; --I am a past staff member of The Independent, and publishing is still my profession. It seems to me that Matt Saldana's article would better have been titled "The Two Faces of The Independent." The first face was shown in Melinda Ruley's cover story, which to me looked like a cheerleader's dream in which she parroted Bo's own naivete and overconfidence about what it would take to start up a biodiesel plant in eastern North Carolina. The second, while equally sincere, looks to me like a self-righteous smear job. Before reading the posts made to this discussion over the past three days (including, to the paper's credit, the transcript of Saldana's interview with Bo, Sita, and Catherine), I was already thunderstruck by the defensiveness, distortion, and oversimplification that are evident throughout Saldana's piece. His overall tone of doubt and betrayal emerges immediately. Of the first 15 paragraphs, 5 (1/3) begin with oppositional signals such as however, but, yet, and nonetheless; two more lead off with negative signal words such as "allegation" and "terrible, terrible." The fourth paragraph of the story itself (not including the introductory paragraphs in italic) begins with a significant double entendre: "on these grounds." Is Saldana referring to the physical grounds of Kindness House, which he describes in the first two paragraphs, or is he referring to the spiritual grounds set forth in the third paragraph, in which he quotes Bo Lozoff's reference to Jesus Christ? Or is Saldana trying to merge the two sets of "grounds" in a subliminal attempt to convince the reader, before the story has even been fully presented, that Bo Lozoff fancies himself the master of a domain that is both spiritual and temporal? My suspicion that the latter is the case, as well as my suspicion that the Independent's own sense of betrayal underlies the entire investigation, were sparked by the article's italicized preface. The first sentence, which simply states that an article about Bo's fundraising efforts was published in 2004, is followed by a new paragraph beginning with the word "However." But the rest of that paragraph, which erroneously states that it was only "earlier this year" that former volunteers and residents (some ex-offenders) "came forward" with various accusations, does not actually contradict anything in the first paragraph. The fact that in 2004 the Independent published an article about Bo Lozoff would not be inherently oppositional to a decision to publish another article about him--unless the paper's own attitude toward him had changed radically. Only if the first sentence is interpreted as "In 2004, we published an unquestioningly laudatory article about Bo Lozoff," is the "However" that begins the next paragraph justified ("...because it's been brought to our attention that he's not as perfect as we made him out to be"). Unfortunately, it's left to the reader to discern the real common thread: that Bo Lozoff is a spiritual and temporal risk-taker who has always adamantly admitted his own imperfections and striven tirelessly to improve them. To me, as someone who knows Bo and Sita, has carefully read each and every newsletter and publication put out by Bo and HKF since 1984, and has interacted with them both spiritually and socially, Matt Saldana's unfamiliarity with the kind of work they do, as well as with their substance as human beings, was crystal clear throughout the article. If he had been at all willing to portray them as they genuinely are, instead of being afraid of giving the impression that his so-called objectivity had been compromised, he would never have referred to Sita Lozoff merely as "his [Bo's] wife"--Bo has always insisted that Sita is his absolute equal in life and work. Nor would Saldana have referred to Bo and Sita's lodgings at Kindness House as Bo''s "private cabin"--the only space Bo had at Kindness House that could be called exclusive was his office (which Saldana, true to form, made sure to describe as "windowless"). Furthermore, a journalist with no axe to grind would not have repeated he said/she said accusations about things that happened in group meetings among people who admittedly had no training in counseling or therapy--let alone private sexual encounters between parties who were admittedly ambivalent and confused about the substance of these encounters--and left the veracity of all in the hands of an equally underinformed public. Because part of what I do for a living is deconstruct other people's writing, I was alerted by the above problems and therefore strongly suspected that the quotes from Bo Lozoff chosen by Saldana would be taken out of context throughout the piece, to illustrate Saldana's own conclusions. But after reading the interview in which the quotes were given, I can only wonder who did a worse job: Saldana, as the writer who misapplied the quotes, or his editors who now defend his distortions. In the interview, Bo Lozoff takes full responsibility for his own bad behavior--the deceit, dishonesty, unpreparedness, irresponsibility, and hubris that have damaged not only his own reputation but also the reputation of the Human Kindness Foundation. He speaks without equivocation of his own pain, confusion, and shame. But according to the quotes chosen by Saldana, Bo expresses no remorse, to the point of blaming G!d Himself for choosing him to lead Kindness House. Even more damningly--and less accurately-- he seems to arrogantly inhabit an enormous contradiction: teaching, guiding, and counseling vulnerable people while repeatedly denying that he is a teacher, counselor, or spiritual guide. But these are only the defamations applied to Bo as a person. The entire article is sprinkled with scandalous innuendo: 1) It speaks confidently of the "devotees" and "acolytes" that Bo Lozoff continues to "attract" (contrary to his own repeated assertions and the fact that it's been more than 2 years since he resigned as spiritual director of Kindness House). 2) It conveniently muddles whether parolee residents signed agreements binding them to the rules of a parole program or binding them to a "self-styled" religion. 3) It drops all forms of "allege" after the first mentions of each supposed incident of Bo Lozoff's violent, coercive conduct (which signals the reader that these accusations are in fact true). 4) It quotes some general defenses of the value of Bo's work but offers no refutations of specific "alleged" events other than Bo's and Catherine's (because, as one finds out only if one goes online and follows the link to Saldana's interview with them, Saldana did not take it upon himself to find any refutation but rather gave the Lozoffs and Catherine Miller less than a week to recommend their own). 4) Unlike a real trash tabloid such as the National Enquirer, The Independent's article fails to include the caveat that none of the scholarly experts interviewed by Saldana have ever met Bo Lozoff or have professionally evaluated HKF or Kindness House. 5) Least objectively of all, it paints Bo Lozoff throughout as an egomaniac within his life's work, whose deliberate attempts to "justify" his methods date back as far as 2001 (instead, the quote from his interview with Ascent Magazine would have been far more accurately described as an explanation). Despite these (and other) examples of bad writing, the article--as well as Saldana himself in his interview with Bo, Sita, and Catherine--goes to notable lengths to assure the reader that Saldana's sources were myriad (if not named, which the reader is expected to accept is different than "anonymous") and that his interviews were "extensive" (never mind that one cannot interview an entire Department of Corrections or "another state parole program"). Saldana's defensiveness is further revealed by the parenthetical refutation of Bo Lozoff's reference to TROSA--this, at least, makes sense after one has seen the context in which Bo originally compared the two institutions. In my opinion, the most irresponsible aspect of Saldana's attack on Bo Lozoff involves the question of whether or not Bo had the authority to send offenders back to prison, or whether he at any time truly believed that he had such authority. Here, Saldana echoes Melinda Ruley's wide-eyed reporting by swallowing whole the denials of various parole boards that they "had records" or had ever even heard of Bo Lozoff, HKF, and so forth. He further cements his own bias with two unsupported claims: first, that "Parolees who chose Kindness House did so for its spiritual aspects" and "...for the most part, Lozoff provided one option, out of many, where ex-offenders could parole." Significantly, Saldana does not examine the possibility that spirituality could have been only one of many reasons that parolees could have had for choosing Kindness House as a parole site. Nor does he include any statistics about the number of similar parole opportunities within the United States, the number of parolees who are denied for lack of suitable environments to parole them to, or any other information that might raise doubts about the statements he chose to present as fact. He also ignores the possibility that department of corrections staffs could have very good reasons of their own not to comment on a program that is a: no longer in existence; b: undergoing media scrutiny; and c: run by someone who has been openly and influentially critical of the U.S. prison system for decades. Evidently, it seemed like the better choice to imply that Bo Lozoff (and, by extension, HKF) have widely misrepresented themselves than to openly discuss what options are really out there for parolees and whether Bo Lozoff and HKF were simply left out to dry by the parole board reps with whom Saldana spoke. If his questions to them by phone were as slanted and innuendo-laden as his questions were to Bo, Sita, and Catherine in person, it doesn't strain my credulity at all to think that they may have done exactly that. Similarly, Saldana twists his prose like a pretzel to convince the reader that Bo Lozoff is in fact a spiritual teacher, counselor and guide who nonetheless persistently, ingeniously denies his roles in all of those areas. A centerpiece of this portrayal is Saldana's attempt to show that Bo Lozoff egotistically believes that he, himself, has gotten people released from prison and that he has had the sole power to send them back. It defies not only belief but also common sense and logic that a man who has been intimately and successfully involved in the incarceration, prison life, spiritual development, release, and rehabilitation of thousands of prisoners, over four decades, could have such mistaken ideas about not only himself but also about the U.S. criminal justice system. It is even less credible that a reporter who is so quick to reiterate the mores of his profession ("that's the way it's done," etc.) would fail to recognize genuine professionalism in someone else. In plain English: Bo Lozoff knows perfectly well that he personally does not decide whether any prisoner receives parole or whether the parole of any single prisoner is revoked. He has, however, played the game long enough to know that, as an authority figure both known to and trusted by parole officers and parole boards across the United States, his recommendation about whether a prisoner should be remanded would be taken so seriously that it would probably be followed without additional investigation. He also knows that his books, and the correspondence sent by himself, Sita, and other HKF volunteers, are not only spiritual lifelines to thousands of desperate people but also a primary influence in their lives while imprisoned, as well as a primary factor in whether they are able to survive prison both mentally and spiritually. That Matt Saldana chose to literally interpret Bo Lozoff's statements about his involvement in these matters and spend a good deal of his article trying to disprove them on a literal level, while understating the effectiveness and positive influence of his mission, is only one of the many regrettable things about this piece. As both a writer and editor, my professional opinion is that it was researched poorly; focused with bias on matters that were either exaggerated or have been resolved, with no discernible goal (other than to report "news"); and published to the detriment of a man and a program whose positive effects vastly outweigh their foibles and errors. I'm disappointed in Bo Lozoff for his mistakes, but I'm appalled at The Independent for publishing a trumped-up expose that cannot rectify any of those mistakes. What it can do, however, is become fuel for draconian prison administrations that would use any excuse to deny prisoners access to HKF materials or correspondence with HKF staff. If these were the intentions of Matt Saldana and the paper's editors, I congratulate you all. Under the rubric of speaking out for the weak and disempowered, you may end up depriving people far more weak and disempowered of help freely offered that they truly need. I don't deny that Bo Lozoff behaved badly, that he misused his position and authority, and that he hurt and betrayed people. He doesn't deny those things either. I now wonder if you, also, will face up to the damage you've caused by publishing this article, and try to make amends. I wonder if you can even admit your own hubris and misuse of power and authority. Although I believe in The Independent's mission as an alternative news source, my experience with the paper warns me not to hold my breath. However, I will continue to be friends with Bo and Sita and to support their work--my experience with them assures me that such faith and trust is not misplaced.

Sorry that the above ran as one long paragraph--I hit "post" before I put in the paragraph marks.

If I could edit it now, and make it easier to wade through, please know that I would.

K.

I have read the article and full transcript of Matt Saldana’s interview with Bo and Sita Lozoff and Catherine Miller. I am shocked and absolutely puzzled at the purpose of the Independent newspaper publishing the twisted, lie-filled article The two faces of Bo Lozoff. Even though I feel compelled to comment innumerable times on Matt Saldana’s obvious inaccurate reporting of what he claims as the truth, choosing to dig up a few person’s to quote who have led their own lives into dismal quandary and feel compelled to blame someone else, and Saldana’s time and again revealing that he obviously hasn’t researched the subject matter very well and doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about, (Miracle of Love, by Richard Alpert, known to some as Ram Dass, is no more a biography than Saldana is a trustworthy journalist) I must try to keep my comments brief so as to make the actual honest facts I have to offer clear. I am a 65 year old, former prisoner caused by the error of my own ways, now reformed, who managed to scrape together bus fare to North Carolina where Bo Lozoff drove 35 miles in a used economy car to come and pick me up after I had been accepted to live at Kindness House long enough to get on my feet, regain my health while learning to live a respectable life of service to others. I lived and worked there with Kevin Dessert and Bruce Thomas, among others. I got to know both of those men very well and I personally find it difficult to believe they told the lies about Bo and Kindness House of which Saldana made claim. Perhaps that’s simply more of the twisting and exaggerating that makes up the entire article. Dessert and Thomas are both much younger than myself and having suffered (and caused others to suffer) years of abuse and violence, they are still trudging toward recovery. I trust they will both find their way to a clearer understanding of life and how to live their own as they grow up. The charges of Bo or Catherine, or anyone at Kindness House, of bullying or intimidating residents are the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard. Kevin and I were both caught breaking rules and we were never kicked out, nor was anyone else. No one was ever threatened or ridiculed, indeed, as misfits being led to live a peaceful, constructive life for a change, we were tolerated, time and time again. Again, I am puzzled as to why Saldana and the Independent didn’t choose to interview or quote the many, many former residents who would gladly stand behind these actual facts that I offer to you. At dawn each morning, the community began the day together, gathering in silence to meditate and then read from various brilliant philosophers, poets and sages with practical, inspiring insights and affirmations. We maintained silence until joining hands around the breakfast table for prayer of thanksgiving. We each had jobs to do to maintain the farm of vegetables we grew, milk the cows, tend to building repairs, answer the many letters from inmates seeking change and package the spiritual books we sent for free in answer to requests. We were given the opportunity to learn many skills, but most of all to learn to be responsible participants and members of community and society. Bo and Sita and Catherine devoted their lives to affording so many, these opportunities. And still the Lozoffs and the Millers kept close, loving families and both raised sons we would all be proud to call our own. One evening, I received a call from a niece informing me of my mother’s death. The community, along with the evening’s guests, were gathered, as always, around the wood stove for song and thought-provoking discussion. Bo and Sita learned of the call I had received, excused themselves from the evening’s gathering and took me to their cabin where the three of us sat around their personal altar in candlelight. Bo, as so often he did, spoke softly with comforting words while Sita held me in her arms and wiped my tears. This is who Bo and Sita and Human Kindness Foundation really are. Literally, thousands of men and women’s lives have been salvaged and restored by Human Kindness Foundation. I remain in written correspondence with numerous inmates who have found reason and change available to what they once felt was a hopeless circumstance. I myself am one of those I describe and I am forever grateful to Bo and Human Kindness Foundation. Bo and Sita and Catherine are just folk, like all of us here on this spinning planet. However, I must say that I personally hold them special, in that they have each strived and given their lives to be of service to the confused, the lost, the less fortunate, and therefore to all of humanity. Bo has taught me many things, yet I suppose most valuable of all, he has taught me forgiveness. I forgive you Matt Saldana, and I pray that you may someday come to know and support the goodness in the world……….like the goodness brought into being by spirits like Bo Lozoff. Charles Clarke hkfchas@hotmail.com

Now I see clearly the " two faces of Charles Clark. " Charles is correct in saying that he lived at Kindness House with Bruce and myself. He is also right in that Bo and Sita do good work and have a very loving and compassionate side. They've done much good and spread much love in the world. Like I said, I'm a product of that work.

The title of the article is " The Two Faces Of Bo Lozoff " We all know ond see the face of Bo that is comprised of love and compassion. He's been in newspaper and magagazine articles all over the world for the last three decades attesting to the fact of his love and good work. No one is denying that. BO DOES GOOD WORK !!!! But there's also another side to Bo's personality that is dark and victimizes people. That uses people for self centered purposes and self-gratification under the guise of helping them. Prior to this article by the Independent, not a single word has ever been written about this other side of Bo.

If the Independent had forwarned Bo and given him a month to prepare for this article, Bo would have easily had hundreds of people from all over the world praise him, Sita and HKF for their decades of service and good work. These people would have been people who have never lived at Kindness House and who've never seen the dark side of Bo. So, what good would it do to hear from even 10,000 of them? The people who know Bo's other side are a small number, probably under 100. Bo is extremely media savy so to extract the truth out of all this, how else could Matt Saldana have approached this story in order to get to the truth?

Now let me share a little about Charles Clark. Charles never came to Kindness House as an ex-con. He was never in Kindness House's ex-con program. He came as a volunteer from Mississippi. He had an extremely tumultous experience at Kindness House.

From the begining, Charles walked around bashing and bad-mouthing Bo, Sita and Catherine behind their backs. He would go on about how controling it was. He would bash Bo's music and even gave Bo a nickname that we all used behind his back. " Bozo " Lozoff. This was our own private joke. Charles would hardly ever sit around the woodstove during the evenings and was often confronted about this at the weekly tunings. He would use any excuse to leave the property usually on his bicycle where he would go to the local store to buy coffee and beer.

At one tuning, Charles went into this rant about his years of using and manufacturing crystal meth. He went on in tears about how many people were harmed by his meth and were even in a mental institution for life. He went on about how guilty he felt. Come to find out, when his wife moved into a cabin on Kindness House property, Bo asked her about this and she told him it was a lie. Bo took me aside and said, " I asked Charles' wife about what Charles shared about the meth and she said it wasn't true. I can't believe a word Charles says. He's a compulsive lier. " Yeah, Charles is a great witness for the goings on at Kindness House.

Not to mention that every time Charles comes to Kindness House after accumulating months or even years of sobriety for Alcoholism, he soon starts to drink again and goes off on these blackout drinking binges. I asked him the last time, " why is it that every time you come to Kindness Hoouse and get arond Bo, Sita and Catherine, you get filled with anger and rage and you start drinking? " He said that he didn't know.

Charles is in Mississippi at the moment. How did he hear about the artice? Did Bo, Sita and Catherine call him? And Bo calls me the master manipulator. I now clearly see the two faces of Charles. He's a great witness as to the true goings on at Kindness House.

I love Charles and I pray that he can one day find it in his heart to see the pain and suffering that Bo has caused and can maybe share a little about that truth.

Kevin Dessert

I have personal experience with Bo and Sita and have for a long time felt frustrated that the reality of the situation with this cult was not widely understood. Human Kindness Foundation profited from the good wishes and compassion of many who care about the plight of prisoners, and also from the inmates with few resources or friends who were maximally vunerable to control and domination. People simply don't want to believe that Bo and Sita can be manipulative and anything other than the saints that they portray themselves to be in their publicity.

Bo did what so many others have done, typical of primate social order right back to the baboons; the head male desexualizes the subordinate males and thus has access to the women. Oddly enough, primate females tend to like this and make it possible with their compliance, perhaps due to the preference for dominant male genes. (This process need not go all the way to physical sex to be in operation.)

Bo insisted on being the boss-man of a cult, and my dissent was met with long and extremely profane tirades. He presumed to teach about anger to people for whom anger control is a life-and-death issue, while himself having a profound rage problem. I shudder to think how he would fare as a prisoner himself.

Bo didn't really want volunteers; he wanted devotees, which actually translated in this context as slaves, who would not have any voice in the community and in general would leave when they tired of this treatment. I have met people as far away as New Mexico (at the Neem Karoli Baba temple) who have had this experience with Kindness House. There are some people who want to be dominated, and like the sense of simplicity and security that comes from giving up control to someone eager to take it. There is no shortage of such pathological dominators to take up the job. (Bo told me he didn't want anybody at Kindness House who had a "problem with authority", when of course the problem was his; somebody has to be in charge of everything, but it doesn't need to be Stalin.)

I hope that this article and subsequent reactions can result in a more accurate understanding of their motivations and true results of their work in the community. Actually I hope that there can be a court order restraining Bo from visiting prisons anywhere in the country; if not that, then perhaps he will be prevented by lack of contributions.

The author of the Indy article did not understand Neem Karoli Baba at all, but this is understandable as he is a very puzzling figure. I can vouch for NKB's status as a very high being worthy of respect and, for me, devotion. One is as unlikely to get the real picture about NKB from the Human Kindness Foundation as one would learn about Jesus from David Koresh or Jim Jones.

Reading the interview transcript, whatever you might believe about Bo and his transcendent service to us all, it's a bitter disappointment having to acknowledge Bo's manifest poor judgment throughout this scandal.

This excerpt from the interview illustrates the pattern well:

INDY: "[REDACTED]is a corrections employee who visited HKF on several occasion during ex-con/corrections employee retreats in the early 2000’s. During her first visit, she performed oral sex on you during a one-one-one meeting. You began contact by kissing and touching her, while counseling her about being stuck in her second chakra. You explained that you lived an abstinent life, and that this was an aberration."

BO LOZOFF: "Well, I don’t know about my conversation with [REDACTED]. I did have a sexual encounter with [REDACTED] during her visit. I notice a name you’re not naming here is Kevin Dessert, and I have a hunch..." {And so on...}

Oral sex from a corrections employee on her first HKF visit seems extremely poor judgement, in so many ways, considering the importance of the institution she represents to HKF's mission, as well as the potential effects on her emotional health and her career. Bo practically ignores the allegation; instead, he jumps right into discrediting the witness. Throughout the interview Bo's responses remind me of that typical con rap about a malicious prosecutor and an unreliable witness getting him convicted. Bo did the crime, he admittedly betrayed his wife, his community, his many supporters, and the program. He comes across like an aggressive defense attorney trying to get his client off on a technicality, when he might be better served by a unqualified mea culpa.

On the bullying/intimidation issue, Bo's behavior in the interview makes it completely believable to a reader who doesn't know him or the program. Bo comes out swinging (verbally) at a meeting with a potentially hostile adversary who holds all the trump cards. Among the issues, known in advance, were bullying and intimidation. From the interview:

BO LOZOFF: "I don’t remember that detail. But I will tell you, eye to eye, that I have never threatened or come close to any sort of violence, and if you print the word 'violence' and you editorialize, I’m absolutely going to take you to task for it in every responsible way that I can. I have screamed at people at people in Kindness House. And if you go to TROSA, right here in Durham, and sit in on one of their evening sessions, in a community of ex-cons and addicts, you’ll hear constant screaming. I hope you do your homework. A couple of times a year, I might have erupted and screamed at people in Kindness House, and I just want you to know, if you editorialize that with 'violence', if you even imply slightly that I threatened violence against anybody, or that I almost committed violence against anybody, you’re way, way out of your league, because that never happened."

INDY: "Is that a threat right there? You’re saying, 'If you.'"

BO LOZOFF: "I said I will take you to task. Why are you so against me? We just met."

I've spent a little time with Bo and have broken bread at Kindness House. I know from personal experience how hard some of these parolees can be, and I am not convinced about the validity of the whole bullying/intimidation issue. But, and this is my point really, I absolutely understand how Bo's conduct in the interview could have reinforced its validity in Matt's mind.

This is a Greek tragedy in which an intelligent, even brilliant, charismatic leader who has dedicated so much of this life to serve the hardest people imaginable, gets caught dealing some really low cards off the bottom of the deck. The politically savvy solution, the spiritually correct solution (according to Bo's professed values), and the least damaging solution for Bo and the community would be for him to take full, unqualified personal responsibility for his poor judgment. By unqualified, I mean "I did it, it was wrong, and I am sorry" period, no excuses, no rationalizations, no references to anyone's failings but one's own.

Anyone who has ever worked professionally with women damaged by unconventional sexual practices can tell you that there are likely many more women who have not yet come forward. Perhaps they are well married to a man who might not understand, or they need to protect their kids, and so on. Eklutna, for example, might be a professional treating one such woman. Bo's reference to "too much therapy" practically taunts these other women to come forward. Think how relieved these women would be if Bo issued a public appology and an offer to make amends.

I do think Matt, his editor, and the Indy completely blew it with the Oprah/Satan/Jesus comment, leaving the Indy wide open to the "tabloid journalism" charge. It muddies the water in a situation where the community really needs clarity.

While I disagree with most of the criticisms of the story posted here, I do agree that the cutline beneath the newsletters is incorrect. A correction will appear in the paper and I have changed it online to read the following:

In two of his newsletters, Lozoff compares his spiritual quest to that of Jesus' and stated "The Secret" closely exemplifies Satanism. Its teachers had appeared on the "Oprah" show; Oprah has avidly endorsed "The Secret."

I didn't know Bo or Sita well and only met them a few times many years ago. I did however spend two years in a Christian commune when I was young and saw some of the complicated and difficult dynamics in making an intentional community work. There were many ways for standards to start drifting as a result of isolation. Because of the small size there is less inertia and these can change fast. I will honor them for their work and sacrifice that seems to have helped so many that the rest of us conveniently forget. (We judge with the broader standards of our society and just because these seem "normal" doesn't mean they can't be far off as well.) While I honor the Independent for trying to tackle such a huge and complicated story I think it is really more on the scale of something "Frontline" would do. There is a lot at stake here. These people have done great things and I think it is important to understand just what went wrong and by how much. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a larger look at this. I'd like their work to be honored but to also for there to be a record so others can be aware of how easy it is to go far astray.

Oh this is html typing. Sorry for the no paragraphs.

To use the lens of my understanding of addition theory, Bo could be viewed as a sex addict who has not even gotten to step of the 12 steps: "Hi, I am Bo Lozoff, I am an addict, and I am powerless over my addiction." Like most addicts, he weaves a web of lies, deceit, rationalization, and grandiosity to keep his enablers in line. Verbal abuse, one of the most most destructive weapons I know of, is used to discredit victims and challengers and to keep his power intact. All his "good works" are means to keep his self-image shiny and enlarged, and all the while he does not have to face his disconnected, dissociated parts, in other words, his Shadow. Bo seems to be very split into compartments which do not communicate wiht each other. I would like to hear from any professionals who have expertise in this area in an objective assessment of his condition.

He reminds me of Voldemort in that he seems to have very little remorse or consideration of the harm his actions have caused. A true spiritual giant would indeed simply say, "I did it, I am sorry," and make amends.

I applaud the Indy for a good piece of investigative journalism that may resound with many who now may be empowered to say, "No more." The public has a right to know!

What I find fascinating about the comments from Mr. Lozoff’s supporters is that they are so demanding of high-standards and accountability from the people who wrote the story, while demanding no explanation or accountability from the person who created the story.

I apologize for the misspellings and omissions from the previous post. This is my first post on any blog, and I should have proofread my comments. I hope you can still get the gist of what I was trying say. Good luck, Bo, with your healing. It is never too late to say, "I am sorry if I have hurt you." And addiction usually comes from intolerable pain. May your pain become conscious, tolerable, and be eased by grace and honesty. My heart goes out to the victims of both the sexual and the verbal abuse. May you find healing over time.

Speculation by experts is just that--speculation. People can't be reliably diagnosed on paper or by hearsay.

Comparing a real person who's done a lot of good in the world to a fictional, totally evil character is incredibly shallow and stupid. It's also incredibly un-helpful in this situation.

"The public has a right to know"--why? What can be accomplished by raking Bo Lozoff over the coals now, other than additional harm to his reputation and the reputation of the Human Kindness Foundation?

I think that the kindest, most helpful thing that everyone who isn't directly involved in this situation can do is stay out of it. Allow the people whose lives are directly affected the privacy to work through their problems. Pray for their healing if you're so moved. Comfort and encourage them if you know them personally. Enough armchair therapists have weighed in already.

Thanks to The Independent, there are also more than enough people gawking at a very private situation, some of them with agendas of their own that have more to do with revenge than with truth or healing. Maybe they should stick to reality TV...

I wish to express my gratitude to Lisa Sorg, Indy editor, for such a clear demonstration of constructive solutions.

BO U PIECE OF TRASH! ILL END THIS IN TWO WORDS.... "POOR SITA"

Just for perspective try to remember that despite their faults they have done more good in the world than almost ANY of us EVER will.

Part of the reason we don't just kill all the criminals is that people are not "the sum of the worst thing they have ever done." Certainly this must go for ethical failings as well.

Maybe you need an enormous ego and a displaced sense of ones self to try to accomplish such an enormous act. Do we discard and revile Bill Clinton or John Edwards or Eliot Spitzer because of their failings? They did things none of us will live up to. It is so tiring to hear the endless self righteous condemnation that has become political sport in this country.

I cannot know the full truth or extent of it from this article but Bo Lozoff admits to some of it. How integrated he can make this knowledge and what he will do with it is hard to know. Surely we can gain something more from this than just another source of emotional indignation.

As one of the first to comment on this expose, I pointed out that Bo Lozoff's demonstrated behavior is reminiscent of the typical characteristics of the clinically-diagnosed antisocial personality. Bo wasn't happy with that and, as he demonstrates time and again, does whatever he can to deflect attention from himself and turn it on others. This, and the resultant firestorm of comment, are also typical of the antisocial personality's way of creating chaos and dissension, polarizing those in the vicinity in such a way as to deflect attention from their own actions. Elsewhere in these comments, Bo is compared to Voldemort, this generation's typification of the antisocial personality al la Charles Mansion or others, and his "male dominance" behavior in a community of both males and femiles is compared to that of primates. This reminded me of teaching about brain evolution in "Psych 101" classes, where theories of evolution demonstrate the progression of human behavior from the instinctual, predatory "reptilian" brain to the "limbic" cortex, guided by emotional "thinking," and eventually to the higher-order "Neocortex" behavior demonstrated by some of our greatest leaders. But it is true that some of those greatest leaders have been guilty of "reptilian" behavior even while accomplishing great things, and so the question remains: what are we to do? How are we to react? The reader--and follower of Bo's--who suggests that the rest of us just "butt out" and leave the situation to those who are truly involved is misguided, I believe, because ALL of us are involved in any situation in which our own assumptions about those who put themselves above the rest of the herd and encourage us to follow them are acting as collective symbols of the evolving consciousness of all humankind. We are all thus responsible to correct the mistakes we tacitly and unthinkingly condone and examine ourselves as to why we allowed them to happen. It is true, our leaders get away with this kind of nonsense every single day, and we tell ourselves "oh, well, what can we do;" we excuse them in the interest of the "greater good," and then we wonder why, when this kind of thing comes close to us, it happened. Bo is not the only person here who needs to say "I'm sorry I let this happen. What can I do to fix it--and myself?" We all are. And we start by making it clear to our chosen leaders that we will not under any circumstances tolerate predatory and immoral behavior that flies in the face of their stated ideals.

As to Bo Lozoff, if those closest to him refuse to do this, there is some other reason why they don't, and we may never know what it is if we all just turn over and go back to sleep as we are being urged to do.

Yes, cchaf, very well said, but one crucial point needs to be made. Bo would probably agree that without two women, Sita (his wife) and Catherine, HKF could never exist. Bo is the point man, the money raiser, while two women grind out the glamorless effort that actually gets the good work in the world done. It doesn't take much thought to realize that all of this, and we are talking here about a decades-long pattern of infidelity to Sita, must be very painful for Sita and Catherine. Bo has now publicly admitted much of this, and he has certainly acknowledged the pain he has caused Sita.

What he hasn't done is properly acknowledge the harm he has done to his other sexual partners. He has not properly acknowledged the ego issues that led him into this trap. Finally, he apparently has not stopped the infidelity. His comment that "that was not a secret from my wife" (from transcript) doesn't quite cover the real issues here.

When you take a big step back, you start to see a pattern of abuse of women. Not physical abuse to be sure, but damaging just the same. Bo's use of "consensual sex" in this context merely covers the legal issue. From the transcript:

INDY: "Did she say that she only wanted touching, and chakra work, and didn’t want sex?"

BO LOZOFF: "There was no chakra work. There was no discussion of chakra work."

INDY: "But she didn’t say that she just wanted to snuggle and kiss, but not intercourse?"

BO LOZOFF: "I’m not going to. I don’t know what our conversation was, but if you’re implying that I coerced her sexually, I’ve never done that."

We are not talking about one emotionally fragile woman who misunderstood Bo. We are talking about a pattern involving at least five emotionally fragile, emotionally vulnerable women. Convincing women with very sad sexual histories to engage in any sexual practice which has any significant chance of damaging them really only makes moral sense if you are also committing yourself to picking up the pieces. Marriage is one such commitment. The fact that Bo continued a relationship with a woman after she married, thereby potentially damaging her marriage to someone who was committed to picking up the pieces, speaks volumes.

The spiritual grace Bo has brought to prisoners is public and beyond dispute. Some of the secret damage Bo has brought into the lives of these women has now come to light. Are the supporters and defenders of HKF willing to sacrifice five women on the altar of Bo's ego to benefit one hundred ex-cons? How about sacrificing twenty-five women for a thousand ex-cons?

From the transcript: "And I can’t apologize for that. Because there are other people who are out of prison now, who would not have gotten out of prison if I hadn’t fondled [REDACTED]’s breast. To me, the whole thing was one piece."

HKF supporters, how can Bo continue his good work in a less damaging way? What would it take? This is what Bo needs to hear from us now.

I'm not a follower of Bo's and never have been. Both he and Sita are friends of mine and will continue to be. In addition, I admire their work and will continue to support it.

My friend Bo Lozoff, whose work I deeply admire, has made some very serious mistakes in his professional and personal life. However, even if the person under discussion here didn't happen to be a friend of mine, I wouldn't approve of a bunch of people sitting around on the Internet trying to pin psychological diagnoses onto someone they know about mainly from a highly biased and badly reported newspaper article. It's even less helpful when people with obvious grudges use their inside information to inflame others' sense of self-righteousness. When it gets to the point of batting around New Age b.s. phrases like "through the lens of my experience," and viciously discrediting other participants in the discussion (followed by the obviously phony assurance of "love"), it's definitely time to hang it up.

Using Bo's Lozoff's arrogance as an excuse to behave arrogantly helps no one. Nor does vilifying him in public somehow validate the people who have been wounded by his actions--especially when only a few of those people (nearly a hundred by one estimation!) even have the guts to come forth publicly with their own accusations under their own names. Instead they let The Independent do their dirty work, in some cases years after the fact. What's going on here doesn't validate them or usefully reprimand of Bo Lozoff; instead, it's not much more than gossip and revenge. And I think it stinks.

Even people who have legitimate grievances should have more self-control than to air their one-sided stories, whether in a newspaper or on the Internet, for the public's supposed edification. In my opinion that sort of outing is a hostile form of self-indulgence that only leads to the public mistakenly assuming that it has real information, is qualified to make judgments, and is entitled to make them. But all that's happened, really, is that half-told tales about an old scandal have been dangled in front of them.

The Independent tried to reduce a complex situation into a witch hunt, but all it really did was fling the barn door open long after the horses had fled. And now the whole thing is getting chewed over on this forum. But none of it is helping Bo Lozoff come to terms with his mistakes; it's not even helping him come to a better understanding of what his mistakes were or how he came to make them. Nor is it helping the people harmed by his behavior come to a better understanding of what happened to them or how they can best deal with it (including, in some cases, their own culpability).

I believe that those matters are best dealt with in private--with prayer, counseling, honest self-examination, repentance and regret, direct apology to those who were actually harmed, and attempts not only to make amends but to not make the same mistakes again. The superficial judgments and clumsy advice of outsiders only complicate matters and inflame what is already an ugly, difficult situation. Would any of the people who've dumped on Bo here be happy if their own divorces and other breakups, affairs, custody disputes, job firings, legal problems, spiritual hypocrisies, and psychological illnesses were being raked over the coals as they feel so entitled to do to Bo Lozoff?

I think the answer is no--hell no. I think that if they were faced with comparable public exposure, and the pressure that goes with it, most of the people who are so eager to parade their judgments in this forum would fold like wet envelopes.

"What is hateful to you, do not do unto others. All the rest is commentary."

It's the woman from the article who arrived at Kindness House in 1999. I am the one who approached the Indy with this story because I don't want other women (or men, for that matter) to be hurt. Yes, this is a private, personal matter, but Bo has a very wide reach, thus my inclination to go with a public venue and warn followers who are not aware of Bo's other side. Also, the Board of Directors of HKF found out about the relationships with myself and several other women in the fall of 2002, yet did not take corrective action to keep Bo from repeating the pattern of abuse.

Onepeace:

You're not just warning "followers," your accusations are being presented as truth--as news--to people who don't consider themselves to be anything like followers and even by people who had never heard of Bo Lozoff or the Human Kindness Foundation before last week. Yet you've managed to protect your own privacy throughout.

I'm not impressed.

It's going to be hard to use this article to consistently "warn" people, unless you plan to have a copy inserted in each and every book of Bo's that gets sent to prisoners, every tape of his that gets distributed, etc.

So I'm wondering if you have motivations other than the ones you've expressed in this discussion, and to that end I have some questions for you:

1. Why did you wait for more than five years after your first report to the HKF board, five years after leaving Kindness House, and one year after Kindness House closed, before you contacted The Independent?

Have you also been "inclined" to take legal action against the board or against Bo Lozoff himself? Did you investigate those possibilities, receive word that you have no case, and only then decide to try and persuade The Independent to punish Bo for you?

2. With Kindness House closed, who do you think is now in real danger of being victimized by Bo Lozoff's allegedly sexually predatory behavior?

3. You entered into a consensual relationship, both emotional and erotic, with Bo Lozoff--who was not only your spiritual counselor and someone you trusted enough to let him try to help you resolve psychological trauma but also a married man and the leader of an intentional community that you joined of your own free will. You agreed to keep the nature of your relationship with him secret not only from the rest of the people in your intentional community, but from Sita Lozoff as well. With that kind of terrible judgment, who do you think is going to take you seriously as an accuser of HIS bad behavior? In your estimation, has your judgment improved since the affair ended? If so, how has it improved?

Why did you hold your wedding at Kindness House if escaping Bo Lozoff and the hold he supposedly had over you was so vitally important? Is it true that you asked Bo to perform the wedding himself, and that you spoke in praise of him to the wedding guests? If he was really so manipulative, coercive, and abusive to you, why did you do those things?

Is it true that you began dating the man who is now your husband on the encouragement of Bo Lozoff? How does your husband feel the Indy article--is he pleased that his rival for your affections is being publicly humiliated?

Was it partly to please your husband and make him feel more secure that you've gone public with your accusations against Bo Lozoff?

Onepeace, I look forward to your replies.

"Onepeace, I look forward to your replies." Onepeace needs to make no reply, as she has bravely come forward, told her story, and has again bravely stated why she did it. For her to answer your very pointed--and interestingly, very nuanced--questions, is not needed. Now it is Truth that must answer, and for you to continue your pursuit of truth--little "t"--is to divert attention from bigger issues.

I do not know Bo Lozoff personally, and have no information about anything that happened at Human Kindness Foundation. What I feel after reading all the correspondence surrounding the article about Bo is humility about how easy it is for us humans, myself included, to look (in vain)outside ourselves for the source of our suffering. I have been using an inquiry process called The Work of Byron Katie for the past five and a half years. Time and again this process has brought me to a clear place inside where all my stories of abuse/victimhood make absolutely no sense at all, and in fact are turned on their heads. In the words of Rumi, "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field, I'll meet you there." In my experience 100% of my suffering is caused by believing my thoughts, specifically my projected judgements, and Katie's "work" brings me to Rumi's "field", an open mind, over and over again. Although at first glance her 4 questions and a turnaround appear to be a mental exercise, those who use the process know that it brings us to "Who would I be without that thought?", the stillness and peace of our hearts. I know that all the people writing in this blog, including Bo and the author of the article and those who had things to say about Bo's actions, are doing their very best in our world to act in love and truth, and I wish you all the best in returning to the peace that is inside all of us all of the time. I mention the Katie work as one possible tool you might check out on your journey. Love, Kathleen Hannan

I am not interested in going tit for tat. I am saving my comments for Backtalk. I don't think koonarishi gets how difficult it is for a woman to step forward with this kind of story, even anonymously.

Onepeace, I do know how difficult it is to talk about sexual abuse. I was molested when I was 10 years old and 38 years later it's still having an effect in my life. It's affected every relationship with a man I've had, and flat-out ruined things between me and several close family members. I also know what it feels like to try and talk about that trauma and not be believed and/or be told that what happened was my fault. As for disastrous illicit relationships, I was involved in one as a young adult that radically changed the course of my life and who I have become.

So yes, I absolutely get what it takes to put yourself on the line...even anonymously, about a respected public figure, as you have done. What I don't get is what you (or, for that matter, the other women who made complaints to The Independent) really hope to accomplish with going public about what happened between you and Bo Lozoff--events from the past which can never be fully proven one way or the other and that the public cannot help resolve at all.

Plus I know that when a woman attempts to ruin a man's personal, social, and professional reputation over a sexual relationship, even if he was egregiously at fault, it can become harder for other women to speak out instead of easier. At your instigation, Bo Lozoff has been accused, tried, and sentenced by the press. So I hope for several reasons that your motives are as pure as you claim.

I would like to think that you wouldn't have started down this road at all if you weren't prepared to at least explain yourself. It's not about tit for tat--it's about standing behind your accusations. Why wouldn't you be willing to do that? Did you really think that you could blow the whistle on something like this, deliberately trash someone who means so much to thousands of people, over a consensual relationship that's been over for years, without being challenged?

A letter in Back Talk will of course be more widely read than replies here would be. Unlike here, there you'll have the last word. The Indy will keep attention focused on its coverage. Bo will still have been humiliated in public. The Human Kindness Foundation will still be under a cloud of suspicion. But, with all respect to your pain and suffering, I'm not sure I'll be convinced that you and The Independent have brought all that about simply as a noble act of altruism.

If these matters hadn't become the scandal du jour (des temps perdu!) I certainly wouldn't be addressing you on such an intimate level--and believe me, I'm not doing it now for my own gratification. I don't wish to violate your privacy, and I don't deny that you've suffered. But the person you're punishing for your suffering is my friend, who I've known for more than half my life. I'm willing to consider that you might not have known, when you made the decision to go public with all this, that you were going to have to deal with people like me eventually. If you post to a discussion like this, however, surely you know that you're gonna get called out.

Throughout this thread, there have been one or more writers who have seemed to feel it somehow their "duty" to defend Bo Lozoff, despite Bo's unwillingness to defend himself (or so it would seem). This is interesting, and indicative of my own observations on the topic. Koonarishi, in particular, seems to have taken this on as a campaign, and is even willing to bully (under the guide of reasonableness) one of the women who has come forward, but...for what purpose? As my husband and I have watched this situation go forward over the last few days, we have often wondered if some of the writers are actually who they say they are, and most of all: if the real motivation behind their defense is, in fact, Bo Lozoff. After all, there have been other issues than sexual abuse brought up here. What's really happening?

Koonarishi is determined that all this ought to be swept under the rug, to supposedly be dealt with by the principals. But evidently, it could have been dealt with many years ago, and wasn't. Treatment of sexual predators is a near-impossible task. In fact, in the worst cases, locking them up is the only thing that works. In "lesser" cases, complete and clear exposure of their behavior and protection of current and future victims is all that can be done, most of the time. So what's Koonarishi's beef? HKF was given the opportunity to take corrective action. It didn't. The women who came forward here are doing all they can reasonably do to heal themselves and protect others. As to poor Bo and his hurt feelings, well....sexual abuse is pretty much like alcoholism: incurable, but ABSOLUTELY, 100% preventable. Not one iota of this would have happened if Bo hadn't done what he did. It's really very simple.

Bullying involves threats, ridicule, and deliberate targeting of victims. Please cut and paste where I have done any of those things. I have no power to punish or manipulate anyone, nor do I wish to. Instead I've disclosed exactly what my relationship is to Bo Lozoff, revealed my association with The Independent, exposed my own history as a sexual abuse survivor who's made bad relationship decisions, and used my own name while doing all of that.

I'm defending my friend, you bet. But I've also made no secret of my opinion that he behaved badly and of my disappointment in him. If those sentiments don't seem angry or judgmental enough, too bad.

I have never said that this situation should be ignored, that people should just roll over and go back to sleep, etc. I do believe, however, that fair is fair. I feel strongly that the people who are so eager for Bo to be trashed in the media, and publicly humiliated, should be willing to practice equal disclosure about themselves--starting with using their own names.

The conflicts between Bo Lozoff and many of the people who are angry with him have been dealt with by the principals. They have confronted each other and in some cases have severed their relationships. Bo Lozoff is no longer doing private spiritual counseling or attempting to help women work through their sexual traumas. Kindness House is closed. So I think that my questions about why all of this is being brought to public attention now, who can be protected by it, and how old wounds can be healed by it, are both legitimate and necessary.

The instigators claim that they want justice. Well, three indispensable parts of that process are assuming that people are innocent until proven guilty, making sure that witnesses are reliable, and taking confessions made by the accused into account. Myself, I don't believe that Bo Lozoff should be allowed to hide behind his good works and intentions any more than those who accuse him should be given a free pass because of their pain and suffering.

What I do believe is that Bo Lozoff is not a threat to vulnerable women, however outrageously stupid and misguided his past actions might have been. I do not believe that Bo Lozoff is a habitual, coercive sexual predator or that the women who claim to have been victimized by him are as innocent or naive as they present themselves to be. I also believe that he's paying a heavy price for his mistakes, which just in itself makes him vulnerable to people with all kinds of agendas whose motives, background, etc. cannot be scrutinized nearly so closely and carefully as his. If he wasn't my friend I probably wouldn't have become involved in a public debate like this--not to this level, certainly. But please be assured that I would have exactly the same questions about any public figure caught up in such a scandal, and that I would at least hope for the same level of scrutiny to be applied to his accusers as they are attempting to apply to him.

If there's a criminal case to be made here, against Bo Lozoff or the board of HKF, I wonder why the people who believe they were helpless victims have not pursued legal action. As things are, I see this situation as the belated airing of private matters and as such I think it is far too complex and volatile a situation to be the province of a hostile media and an underinformed public. I also think its timing, years after Bo has resigned his position at Kindness House, Kindness House itself has closed, and his relationships with the women in question have ended, is suspect.

koonarishi, as I've already pointed out in a previous post:

INDY: "Did she say that she only wanted touching, and chakra work, and didn’t want sex?"

BO LOZOFF: "There was no chakra work. There was no discussion of chakra work."

INDY: "But she didn’t say that she just wanted to snuggle and kiss, but not intercourse?"

BO LOZOFF: "I’m not going to. I don’t know what our conversation was, but if you’re implying that I coerced her sexually, I’ve never done that."

This describing a potentially coercive incident less than two years ago, read the transcript (link at the top) for more details.

As to your posts, their general tone might strike a long-term HKF supporter as falling well short of honoring the "human kindness" in Human Kindness Foundation. If we (all of us, Bo included) can't clean up our own act by at least honoring HKF's stated values, perhaps we need to reconsider our very existence as an organization.

I think your more recent posts show real progress toward honoring HKF values. My sincere thanks.

Two notes: First, as to the public forum: I think it is appropriate because Bo himself set himself up as a public figure. He wrote published books. He gave public concerts and raised funds publically. He has been in the news. He presented himself in a certain way to thousands of prisoners in public institutions. He was a self-styled director of an organization that had a public function and, I believe, was non-profit. Second, as to the timing: Wouldn't it take some time to sort through one's complex feelings, gain perspective, and muster courage to tell the truth about something like this? Perhaps it would take a lot of therapy (but not "too much.") and self-examination, even personal growth. These folks who have come forth should be given credit for breaking the first rule of dysfunctional families: secrecy. It is not easy.

Eklutna has already pointed out that the private solution was tried in 2002 (see document link above, search for "He also mentioned his conduct to select community members in a 2002 letter"). Koonarishi's pleas for privacy are compelling on many levels, and a good addition to the debate, but honest and well-intentioned people may have other valid perspectives.

I for one am grateful for the information I've gotten from the Indy article, the transcript of the interview with Bo, and related documents. It helps in answering questions like: Do I continue to support HKF? Do I continue to promote HKF projects among my circle of family and friends? Do I continue to recommend volunteering at HKF to family and friends? Given the extent that I have done these things in the past, I wish I'd had this information about Bo's confessed actions years ago.

Bo would have been far better off, both in reputation and privacy, if he had begun the Indy interview in the following way. "Matt, publish whatever your conscience allows, I'm going to trust you, but will you also please publish this statement from me? 'Friends and supporters, it looks like I've just gotten some hard messages from God. First, I want to publicly apologize to all the women that I have wronged, starting with my wife, Sita. Second, I want to know from these women if there are ways I can make amends, again starting with my wife, Sita.'" And so on... It is likely that the Indy would have published the statement prominently, and the tone of the article would have been very different. Most of the interview transcript, far more disturbing than the article itself, would never even have happened, much less have been made public. And Bo would have taken a huge first step in rebuilding the trust that his actions have damaged.

There is an awful lot of confidence that the whole and true story came out in this article on the part of those who are most condemning.

The way the news media has sunk to its current place is that it is easy to yank our chains. We criticize them yet still buy People magazine and watch the titillating snippets on everyone's affair. We have become easily led suckers: "dittoheads" of all political persuasions.

The one most essential skill that seems dead from my grandparents day is the ability to hold a qualified opinion; to hold in suspicion and wait for more. It is hard work to not fall into the camps of zealously defending or hatefully against on almost any topic. There is not satisfaction or thrill in uncertainty.

Much of our current political mess is tied to this very failing. Without it you are only flotsam adrift not the moral rock we wish to be. I suspect Bo's need for certainty go him into trouble in the first place.

Good point cchaf, but I might add some qualifications. Some of the critical posters may have direct personal experience that corroborates many of the central issues of their criticism, if not the specifics. Some of the critical posters may be basing their criticism solely on the undisputed documentary evidence (2002 letter, for example) or on Bo's various confessions. And finally, some critical posters might have been willing to defend Bo as having for many years exemplified transcendent values, but found, to their deep embarrassment, that Bo is no longer even approximating those values.

You are so correct that the whole story has not been told. I have personally witnessed enough of it myself, that I do not believe that what turns up will be favorable to Bo. I know enough about my own failings to realize that I am no better than Bo and that I am not qualified to say where Bo went wrong. I know from my own personal experience that the problems in Bo's life are very real and were not brought on by the Indy. Therefore criticizing the Indy, or the women, or the critical posters for that matter, will not make those problems go away.

What I say with certainty is that Bo will never heal any of this through anger, not in himself, not in the women, and not in the community. And I believe with all my heart that Bo would say the same himself if he weren't so angry.

I just want to say that I'm glad this article came out. I believe it's sensationalist and I'm pretty sure there's untruths and distortions in it. I have found that to be true about any article written by anyone from the outside of various organizations I've been involved in. Even stuff said and written by people involved in a situation will have that person's spin. I just have to trust that people will either figure that out for themselves or spend their life believing lies. I'm not particularly interested in that aspect of this story. That said, I feel it's important for the truth to come out for those of us who have been involved in HKF but were not aware of what was going on. And I believe the interview is more relevant anyway.

I lived at Kindness House from 2001-2002. I was there while Bo was engaged in sexual misconduct with some of these women. I experienced weird vibes and energy and felt uncomfortable there and attributed it to various things—especially that perhaps I wasn't cut out for a “religious” path. But now that I know what was going on, things make so much more sense to me. As someone who was taught as a child to ignore my own feelings and question my own thoughts, this exposure of Bo's behavior validates my experience. There was something weird going on, I felt it, and now I know more to trust my feelings.

I'm very sorry that Bo and Sita, and really all who have been involved in HKF, have to experience this painful time. I think Bo really does have loving feelings for all the people he writes to. I believe he really feels love for the woman I lived with at the time, who he had irresponsible relations with. I saw how he “cared” for them. I hesitate to call it Love, because I think true love is pretty rare and is truly healing, but he definitely had strong positive feelings and regard for these woman. AND I think what he did was very likely damaging. The woman that he speaks of helping to heal—well what I saw did not look healing. Maybe she was a total wreck when she arrived and was much better by the time I got there, but she looked pretty miserable to me and was struggling with depression and health issues the whole time I was there. I hope she is healing now. She truly is a beautiful woman and a precious soul.

I think the main reason this article came out is because I imagine Bo didn't really heed the message that came out when this all was first revealed on a more private level. It's unfortunate that he didn't admit his mistakes then, publicly, or at least take full responsibility for his actions. I just trying to imagine if Bo Lozoff could have said to the world, “listen, I made a terrible mistake. After all my admonisments to people to control their impulses, I could not control mine...” or something to that effect. If he could have apologized to Bill in a way that Bill could hear. I feel he betrayed the world, and the world deserves to know. If Bo was not willing to tell the world in his own way, then the wrath of those he hurt came to bear.

I personally feel betrayed. I was living with these people and helping out with the project. I was told that things were a certain way. And they were not that way. I early on set boundaries and limits on my involvement because I felt something was weird. I remember Bo describing my mistrust as some sort of flaw, he was saying it in a loving way, but still, when I think of it, it was not a flaw! I was right to mistrust him. I felt bad for not trusting him. Now I'm angry that he implied it was somehow my “fault.” I was not deeply involved, so I don't feel deeply hurt. I can't imagine the pain felt others more involved. I have to say though, while the Indy may have acted irresponsibly, I believe Bo is primarily responsible for creating this terrible situation. He must take responsibility for that piece.

I haven't even touched on the “emotional abuse” issue. Abuse is such a loaded word. I do know that I felt the way Bo talked to people was at times belittling. I don't think he meant to belittle people, but that it can out as a manifestation of his arrogance. I do think the man was and still is arrogant (it comes across in the interview), and that's perhaps his biggest flaw. Bo Lozoff is such a passionate man with such good intentions. If he could deal with that issue, he could truly help heal this sad, mixed-up world. Maybe even help this arrogant mixed-up country we live in.

Bo, I don't know if you will read this, but I'm truly sorry this article feels so hurtful. I think if we don't listen to God's quieter messages, God's voice just keeps getting louder and louder until if feels like a hammer blow to the heart. This is what I believed happened to you. I'd like to end with a quote from you, written to a woman who had killed her own children. Hopefully you can heed your own words:

"You are naked before the world now. Take the freedom to hide nothing, make no excuses, blame no one other than yourself. Surrender to the terrible mystery that has taken place in your life and be a humble servant of God until you draw your last breath. That’s the only thing that will make sense now. You can do this, dear one. And we’re honored to help. (We) love you right now, right where you are. And if (we) do, then imagine how God does.

I stand in awe as many people seem to revel in trying to bring down another human being. Where is our collective Wisdom and Compassion when dealing with such complex and sensitive matters? Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone! The Bo Lozoff that I know is a man who has given his life to helping others. I have known about his work for 22 years, and have know him for over 7 years. I visited Kindness House 3 times(2001, 2002, 2004) for weeks at a time and never once witnessed anything like what this article depicts. I helped him when he was last touring CA. and got to see him in action in San Quentin and the SF County jails. He was truly inspiring and the feeling in those harsh places was one of incredible Love and Goodwill. I really feel that he brought the best to these dark places that human beings have to give. This is the Bo Lozoff that I know. This is not an attempt to excuse any of Bo's mistakes, but simply to round out a picture that has become increasingly skewed. Bo is not an abusive predator, but a human being with his own strengths and weaknesses. Let us not stoop to demonizing. May we all respond with greater Wisdom and Compassion.

I note that the comments on this issue seem to be slacking off. I find myself wondering how the brave woman who stepped up and made this happen is feeling. I wonder how the other women who experienced victimization from this man feel. I think if it were me, I would be wondering why I bothered: a lot of jumping up and down and hollering, and....nothing. Most sexual predators, at this point, might curtail their behavior for awhile, but it would not be long before they were at it again. I hope the women who were involved in this can feel empowered, at least, by having come forward and stated the truth.

The last writer notes that a skewed image of Bo Lozoff has come out of all this. He seems to think this because he himself has a good image of Bo. In the interest of his liking for Bo, he points the finger at the rest of us. Now, let's see, that reminds me of someone.....

It seems to me that, if one reads everything here, a very accurate portrayal of this man has been given, on both sides.

Meanwhile, Bo himself, after his one lengthy diatribe denying all allegations and pointing the finger at others, remains silent. Hey, it will all blow over, right? Mothers, keep your daughters safe, and make sure you always know where they are. What else can we say?

I had intended to contribute only the one comment, but I think there are still some important points to be made. Also I was confused by the Independent’s online form, which resulted in my screen name being used. The idea that it’s somehow OK to make comments on such a topic in such a forum and to remain anonymous strikes me as cowardly. Be it known that this is Roger Tucker from Hillsborough – “sopachochog” is the name I was given when taking the bodhisattva vow. It means “supreme dharma patience,” which points to my greatest obstacle. We all have inner obstacles to be worked with and hopefully overcome, and these are the working ground of the spiritual path. That is why the statement made by “Eklutna” is not only inaccurate (Bo admitted to quite a lot) - “Meanwhile, Bo himself, after his one lengthy diatribe denying all allegations and pointing the finger at others, remains silent.” – but it overlooks the fact that Bo is someone who has clearly followed a spiritual path. Such people are far more likely to learn from their mistakes and make positive changes than those who have not acquired the tools and learned how to use them. The great poet/saint of Tibet, Milarepa, was in his early life a murderer and a black magician.

I’d also like to point out that the informal grand jury consisting of the readers of this particular forum might take into account the relative credibility of the various witnesses involved, most particularly two groups among Bo’s accusers – the women with whom Bo had some sort of sexual encounters, and their supporters, and second, the ex-con who has weighed in. As I said in my earlier comment I have considerable experience with both of these situations, both as observer and participant.

With regard to “inappropriate” sexual behavior I will start with an incident in which I was accused by three women of gross sexual misconduct. The context was a program at one of our practice centers, and I had imbibed perhaps more than I should have. I had more or less forgotten the event when I became aware of the accusations more than a week later. Not being certain myself of the accuracy of my memory, I questioned everyone I could find who had been present – this had occurred in the presence of dozens of other people. I had to guess who my accusers were (sound familiar?), but I guessed right about who one of them might be, and asked her to recall for me what she had seen and experienced. She said that she had been annoyed with me at the time, but the whole thing had been grossly overblown and she had gone with the others to “the authorities” only because they insisted that they needed her support – I never found out who they were. At first I had accepted that I was guilty as charged, but as I pieced together what had actually happened from what the various witnesses told me, I changed my mind and concluded that it was more a case of group hysteria, a squirrely tendency among some women to play the anti-feminist “vulnerable female” card, an acquired habit of perceiving males as sexual predators, and the projection of one’s own dysfunctional emotions onto others.

There is no black and white in these matters and all cases are unique, but there are so many stories of this kind that it is probably wisest not to jump to conclusions based on such testimony. This is particularly true in cases where the “perp” is in the role of a spiritual teacher, and even more so when the spiritual tradition being transmitted is either tantric Buddhism or tantric Hinduism, in which sexual activity is very much included as part of the higher teachings and practices. Not surprisingly, this is bound to lead to confusion and misinterpretation unless the teacher is highly accomplished, has gone beyond self-deception, and has also chosen his (or her) partners with great care. Needless to say, this goes double when Eastern traditions are being taught in a Western context.

As for ex-cons, I am one, a two time loser as they say in the movies. Also, as I mentioned before, I was a counselor for a few months in a halfway house for parolees. What I can tell you from experience is that cons comprise a far greater percentage of pathological liars than any other segment of society – it sort of goes with the territory. Therefore, make sure to include some extra-large doses of salt when considering their uncorroborated testimony.

The last point is something that so far has gone unmentioned, but it’s important, in fact it’s remarkable. Unless I’m wrong, Kindness House resulted in a zero or near zero recidivism rate. This is in contrast to the usual story – that place where I worked for a short time ended up with a nearly 90% rate, and the average for halfway houses is 65-70%, the same as the general rate for released prisoners. This fact alone should give pause to those so quick to pass judgment in this case.

“Judge not lest ye be judged.”

Sopachochog wrote:

..."'sopachochog' is the name I was given when taking the bodhisattva vow. It means 'supreme dharma patience,' which points to my greatest obstacle. We all have inner obstacles to be worked with and hopefully overcome, and these are the working ground of the spiritual path."

My good wishes to you along your path, and I admire your openness, and I beg your patience for a moment, but I disagree that "the statement made by 'Eklutna' is not only inaccurate...but it overlooks the fact that Bo is someone who has clearly followed a spiritual path." I believe Eklutna was referring to an earlier point by point reply by Bo Lozoff in this online blog (“Meanwhile, Bo himself, after his one lengthy diatribe denying all allegations and pointing the finger at others, remains silent”) and not to the contents of the article itself, where you note, "Bo admitted to quite a lot." Eklutna made several references, as did others, to the spiritual path Bo was following. But I am confused that having admitted to "quite a lot," and giving various reasons why this was not predatory or deviant behavior, and yet reading the testimony of various people who feel violated by his actions, you (and perhaps others) would want to pass it off as, "people are far more likely to learn from their mistakes and make positive changes than those who have not acquired the tools and learned how to use them." How long does it take to recognize mistakes and seek to acquire the tools to learn from them, if the mistakes are allowed to become a pattern, and the pattern is allowed to become a pathology?

In all fairness--and I am trying not to be judgmental, but objective--it does seem you have an ax to grind, perhaps unconsciously persuaded by the similarities between what happened to you on one occasion and what Bo is alleged to have done repeatedly. I have noticed that this is the case with other writers here, as well. Use of phrases such as, "...the informal grand jury," "...the relative credibility of the various witnesses involved," and so on suggest you have a bias against "two groups among Bo’s accusers – the women with whom Bo had some sort of sexual encounters" (which as I recall were rather specific in description and not "some sort of") "and their supporters, and second, the ex-con who has weighed in." Your "considerable experience with both of these situations, both as observer and participant" may have biased your reading of the article and the letters to his forum.

The case in point is supplied by you in your anecdote where you relate being "accused by three women of gross sexual misconduct." You conclude that it was just "a case of group hysteria, a squirrely tendency among some women to play the anti-feminist 'vulnerable female' card, an acquired habit of perceiving males as sexual predators, and the projection of one’s own dysfunctional emotions onto others." That litany of stereotypes is very judgmental in tone and intent, and says more about you and your attitudes than you might think it does.

I can only conclude that you do your cause harm, when you look at the "black and white in these matters." I agree that "all cases are unique" in so far as date, time, and location, but the overlying elements are the same. Based on your one experience of being falsely accused (in your words, given that you apparently acted as your own judge and jury), you do "jump to conclusions based on such testimony," and want to excuse Bo's actions as the actions of one "in the role of a spiritual teacher." It just does not seem logical to attribute it to something like, when "the spiritual tradition being transmitted is either tantric Buddhism or tantric Hinduism, in which sexual activity is very much included as part of the higher teachings and practices (a vastly overstated assumption, by the way)." I agree that "this is bound to lead to confusion and misinterpretation," and the measure of a true leader is to recognize when one's own actions are creating that in a follower or adherent and adjust accordingly.

As for the other category to which you refer, the "ex-con(s)," you reveal another bias when you say, "What I can tell you from experience is that cons comprise a far greater percentage of pathological liars than any other segment of society." But not all ex-cons spout off "uncorroborated testimony;" sometimes what they say can be investigated and verified, and then where does that leave Truth? And by the way, you yourself reveal that you are an ex-con. What conclusion can we draw from this?

I don't know about the recidivism rate angle, but it is perhaps something that could be fact-checked, if one can reasonably believe the facts or statistics were accurately reported. As sad as it is, I believe the aspects of females being sexually misused is just the tip of the accusatory iceberg, and there may be a greater financial mass below the water line. Which would make this even sadder, if the brave women and men who submitted themselves to the embarrassing questions of the reporter and the members of the public reacting to this are in fact the lesser elements of the story.

But that is just my hypothesis, based on a reading of the article and being left with questions about why the Board did not react in a certain way or why Sita did not react in a certain way. Perhaps I am revealing my own baises that reasonable people who have been hurt can expect reasonable resolutions. “Judge not lest ye be judged,” you rightly quote Jesus. And he also said something about complaining about the speck that is in your neighbor's eye while you've got a plank jutting out of your own.

Having been a friend of Bo & Sita since the mid-1970's, when I met them in New York, reading all this from Denmark hurts. Over the decades as I wrote my books, I often traveled to North Carolina and stayed for long periods at both Kindness House and where the couple lived previously in Chapel Hill, in the spirit of human service and a personal issue of my own.

My only comment here is that Bo and Sita are among two people of a small handful in this world whom I kindly would like to thank for the fact that I breathe air today.

While I can appreciate Eklutna's frustration with a culture that gives little creedence to women's voices when it comes to abuse, sexual or otherwise, I have to wonder if for her this is far more personal than what she implies. Eklutna, you sound like you have an agenda that's not being satisfied. Your comments are increasingly punitive and transparent: first you make it clear that from a psychologist's perspective you see Bo as an "antisocial personality" [29.August, 2:13pm], blaming Bo for the "firestorm of comment, [which is] also typical of the antisocial personality's way of creating chaos and dissension, polarizing those in the vicinity in such a way as to deflect attention from their own actions." Are you now implying he is also responsible for the fact that "the comments on this issue seem to be slacking off? "... If I were the brave woman who stepped up and made this happen, I would be wondering why I bothered: a lot of jumping up and down and hollering, and ...nothing." [5.Sept.2:04pm]

Your willingness to publicly equate Bo with another writer's reference to a pop culture's mythical figure of evil: Voldemort, and your own reference to "Charles Mansion" [sic]-- a brutal murdering psychopath! based solely on a journalist's clearly slanted rendition of several women's experiences of Bo's sexual misconduct and spiritual leadership, alarms me and makes me question your professionalism! You hinted that, indeed, one or more of these women may be under your thereapeutic care, including "Onepeace", and that you may also have inside information on Bo "[from] friends."

If this is so, my prayers go out to these women. Because, if Bo's admitedly poorly performed attempts at using a powerful mystical-healing tool he had no clear guidance to use, was "manipulation and abuse" in your and others' eyes, then what do you call it when a husband, and/or perhaps a therapist takes a woman who has had a consensual erotic relationship from which she has derived healing, has shed sexual dysfunction, and gives public thanks to the one who helped her overcome these things and (because the nature of this healing is unconventional, complex, and culturally taboo), remolds her thinking to convince her that she has been sexually abused? Along with others, Eklutna has named Bo a 'sexual predator', and stated that, "Treatment of sexual predators is a near-impossible task. In fact, in the worst cases, locking them up is the only thing that works. In "lesser" cases, complete and clear exposure of their behavior and protection of current and future victims is all that can be done, most of the time." And that, "sexual abuse is pretty much like alcoholism: incurable, but ABSOLUTELY, 100% preventable. Not one iota of this would have happened if Bo hadn't done what he did. It's really very simple." And finally, "Meanwhile, Bo himself, after his one lengthy diatribe denying all allegations and pointing the finger at others, remains silent." (Actually, see his letter to the Editor, 3.Sept.08.) "...Hey, it will all blow over, right? Mothers, keep your daughters safe, and make sure you always know where they are. What else can we say?"

I have to ask you, Eklutna, what are you fishing for? You certainly seem to have someting in mind, but perhaps don't want to be the one to say it outright..?

In these writings, you have identified yourself as a psychologist, but you're certainly not an objective one.

Having grown up in a household that was female to male, 4:1, where the women were not only unvalued, but considered a hinderance to the humans (males), a drain on household and world resources, incompetent, stupid and a terrible burden to the larger culture, through a daily dose of verbal abuse, and although I was never physically harmed, have had a life history of identifiying all my ills by my female nature. Along with all my adult sisters, I have had physical illnesses specific to women that are not suggested by genetics. Unlike Bo, I have a great deal of respect for the various psychiatric and psychological traditions, and I have been through many years of therapy of every stripe: family counseling, substance abuse therapy, group therapy, marriage counseling, and individual psychiatric counseling, as well as accupuncture and energetic healing work (the latter of which I've since become a practitioner). If any of my counselors or therapists had ever spoke the way Eklutna does about Bo, in addressing my Father/ brother, or family culture, I would have been far more confused on leaving her office, than when I came in her door, and been headed in the opposite direction from any kind of healing of these deep feminine wounds, which I have gratefully experienced. (Through both traditional methods, and numerous alternatives, including ritual, mystical/ sexual experiences, which are not as uncommon as many may think.) I would not know that my Father is another complex human being, who has had his own issues with abuse, and needed compassion and healing too. There would have been no forgiveness, and its concomitant peace. I would only fear him now, even as a grown adult, and never have left my identity of 'victim' behind. We would not be the loving friends we have since become.

Eklutna says that she hopes these women who spoke up can feel empowered by coming forward and stating the truth. But whose truth is it? I must wonder if it is Onepeace's truth, or her estranged husband's, who admits that he was attached to a certain idea, and "have never been able to put that incident behind me." Onepeace, you say that your marriage is falling apart due to the fallout of what you say Bo did to you, but it sounds to me like a marriage from hell from the start, where your husband could not let go of his precious possessions in the form of his beliefs about his spiritual teacher, and you, his beloved-- who they are, and how they should be in the world. Putting people on pedestals is a dangerous practice. It's not only near instant deification that removes their humanity and turns them into soulless icons, but also prevents any kind of real relationship with them. May each of these Hearts find the Peace that dwells within, as all the great teachers have shown us.

For the record, I have become a friend of Sita's and Bo's, and Catherine's, the same way thousands of others have-- through their profound service work to prisoners and prisoner's families. It was my great honor to spend last winter serving the Prison-Ashram Project and Human Kindness Foundation as a volunteer, both part and full time, for three months. This wasn't Kindness House, but there were ex-cons among the friends and other volunteers who came and went regularly, including Kevin Dessert. Some days I was there from sun up to sundown, working shoulder to shoulder with the whole Lozoff family, Catherine Miller and others.

Bo and Sita lived in the offices for at least 9 months, while Bo built a cabin for them, which I am pleased I had a hand to help in, as well as reading and answering prisoner mail, and stuffing packages in the mailroom, along with offering a few Reiki energy healings, and the more mundane tasks of living. Never once did I feel unsafe, or preyed upon, or deceived. Occasionally frustrated? Yes! My tender sensitivities trampled? A couple of times. As are they, I am a work in progress, and know that perfection and humanity don't often align. What I did get was a lesson in the mistake of putting revered and beloved people on pedestals, (which I had anticipated I would do), and welcomed the iconoclastic reality as a difficult, but rewarding lesson in life. I didn't have to knock them off those columns, they jumped off all on their own, for which I'll ever be grateful. I can now claim to know them as real people, deeply spiritual, committed, relentlessly hard-working and focused, complex, sometimes difficult and bull-headed, and even -- ouch-- fallible.

Eklutna, could the veracity of this article overall, be the real reason it's not generating enough traffic to suit you? Matt tried to use Bo's mistakes, and arrogance to found a story with trumped-up, unsubstantiable allegations against him and absurdly, the Human Kindness Foundation. It makes everything else suspect in its presentation. I've no doubt that some erotic encounters happened, and that Bo's misplaced attempts to keep them secret did some damage. He has admitted as much, but I have known sexual predators and Bo is not one of them. I pray for the healing of those women and men who are struggling upon their own paths, have suffered from these experiences, and have felt that they were doing the right thing in "coming forward." In the way of the Great Mystery, I even have faith that they did the "right thing" with this ultimate destruction, generating death and rebirth. I ask the Divine One, that when all we seekers, accusers or supporters, near our Bodhisattva-selves on our own paths, may we not stumble and fall into another, on his or her path. May all our actions be only from a place of deep courage and truth, always. May we never err with hubris, because we've been Blessed with a Divine gift, but no guidance as to how to use it. May we do no harm.

By the name of the Most Divine, Peace and Blessings to all, Becky Hoffbauer

Becky, I would suggest that what Eklutna expresses from her study of human behavior is an important lesson for us all to learn. Antisocial behavior tends to pool in male populations due to what's not on our Y chromosome and what hormones bathed through us during critical brain development stages; there's potentially far more synaptic communications going on between key regions of the brain that can result in empathic behavioral patterns. Interestingly, meditation practices has empirically been shown to help bridge that gap in the male brain. That need in many males to dominate this way may have served a function long ago, to instantly get rewarded by a rush of biochemicals whenever an attacking lion demanded from the alpha male monkey a heroic rescue of his harem.

In our patriarchal society, the male ego has severely silenced the female voice, possibly due to that fear on a very deep unconscious level if I were to get Jungian about it. So Becky, I don't see an agenda from what Eklutna shared here. She's simply making a scientifically well-founded observation about a serious problem in society.

As to how Bo fits into all this, I have no right to judge except by personal and helpful experience. I imagine there have been shed a lot of tears at Kindness House and by all those unique features that made those gorgeous acres so special prior to its dissolution. I can only imagine the private sorrows between Sita and Bo. And since I know nothing concrete of it, I have no concept of whatever any woman may have felt if violated by Bo. But from my decades of experience with Bo and Sita, I believe that their faith will pull them through anything and everything. I have experienced that faith of theirs for over 3 decades, deeply respect it, and the path to God for a man sometimes might be the female. Jung again... sorry, but there might be a hint here

Why do people insist on defending Bo? Why won't you help Bo get help and find healing? No writer on this commment page knows Bo like I do except his daughter-in-law Mellisa. Did you read what she wrote in the " Going Off About Lozoff " column? I can only imagine how hard it was for her to write so honestly. Do you think she lied or exagerated? What motive would she have to lie?

I lived and worked side by side with Bo for 2 1/2 years. I ate at a table with him about 2,739 times. I've had countless one-on-one sessions with him and countless group sessions with him and members of the community. I KNOW BO LOZOFF !!!

Becky, you're not painting a clear and accurate picture of your experience at HKF. Bo was on tour for most of your stay in NC. He came back in the end of August or early September to build his cabin. How long were you actually in his presence? A month? Were you ever at Kindness House? I remember Bo working on that cabin from sun-up until after dark most days. How can you defend Bo against people that know him so much more intimately than you do? You live in Iowa. How did you find out about this?

Danishauthor, you met Bo a few times. How can you sit there and defend something you know nothing about? We all know about Bo's good work. What we're discussing here is Bo's BAD work of which you know NOTHING about.

Anyone who defends Bo's sexual misconduct isn't Bo's friend at all. Bo needs to hear the truth right now. My friend Bo needs help. Coming from a place of sadness and feeling bad for Bo in his time of struggle, isn't helping him to heal. The truth of the matter is that he hurt people and severely tarnished the reputation of a beautiful organization. An organization that helped save my life. Bo needs to hear the truth from his friends, supporters and people who claim they know and love him.

One of the main reasons that this all happened is that Sita, Catherine and Josh refused and failed to confront Bo and compel him to stop working with woman sexually. Bo wasn't confronted for his screaming temper tantrums. He was allowed full reign resulting in what we're seeing today.

Please help Bo. Tell him what he really needs to hear. Allow him to fall so he can heal and rise up. That's love. Believe it or not, ironically, Bo taught me this. Too bad he put's himself above his own teachings.

I love Bo. Please show him that you truly love him too.

Sincerely,

Kevin Dessert

You are naked before the world now. Take the freedom to hide nothing, make no excuses, blame no one other than yourself. Surrender to the terrible mystery that has taken place in your life and be a humble servant of God until you draw your last breath. That’s the only thing that will make sense now. You can do this, dear one. And we’re honored to help. (We) love you right now, right where you are. And if (we) do, then imagine how God does.

I kind of felt like this got lost in the shuffle, and I think that would be a pity. Someone who can write something like this has been given a monumental gift. But words, even God-given ones, are cheap. It's living them that makes the difference. I think Kevin and various others are right: this is all a great gift to Bo. He is loved. Will he be able to accept love that doesn't come to him on his own terms? That will be his acid test. His daughter-in-law reports that he will no longer teach. Well, in my opinion, that's just not possible: we are all teachers to each other, every minute of our lives. Bo can submit to the new level of humility he is being offered, or he can sulk for the rest of his life. It's up to him. Nothing is ever lost.

My own teacher said many times during his life that if we had the slightest idea of what love REALLY is, we would be completely shattered in our understanding.

Oh, and Becky: I hope that was therapeutic for you, but your assumptions about who I am and what my agenda is were erroneous. I couldn't make it through all your lengthy post, but I did notice your assumptions about this, and about who I might be associated with in all this. I won't entertain that, but I will say that I have worked in the human services field for many years, and with many, many clients. I am also a member of the larger contemplative community of this planet, and this area. We are all inter-connected, and we all know each other and OF each other, on some level. We are all responsible for each other, too. Bo knows that, even as he staggers under the weight of "the love that shatters and heals."

Dear Kevin,

There's no need for you to react like that. Who cares how long anyone has known anybody; we're all far more ancient than such pettiness. I have known Bo since the mid-1970's, lived, worked and shared the most intimate details of life with them in Chapel Hill and elsewhere. Don't you think that anyone with half a heart would have understood what sits lurking beneath anyone's facade?

I've had screaming fights of disagreement with Bo, but I also realize that everywhere anyone reacts to anything... that there sits something for me, for the true Self (in the non-dual, Jungian, Martin Luther etc way) to work on, like the title to a book I read long ago, grist for the mill. Don't you think it's possible for many of us on the journey to understand that?

It's not my place here to write words that only serve to trigger hurt in another human being. It's not my place here to further turn a painful screw in life on another human being, either for a pound of flesh or to feel I may be teaching someone something. The only true lessons that are ever learned are the ones we do from the core of the intuitive heart. As I wrote above, there is a small handful of people on this planet that I thank for my life, and Bo & Sita are 2 of them. That's a truth as real and full of lessons to anyone as anything anyone here might have written.

Having worked as a therapist in Denmark for people who have severe trauma issues in their life, the place in my heart that is ripped is exactly as I wrote above, though I deleted a paragraph above where I share a bit of about what being victimized feels like. But that plus a few sentences that extrapolate on our patriarchal tendencies in the way even some of the best of us are with women in so many ways in society were deleted because it's not my place in this forum to go there. There are too many people on this planet with serious personality issues who get off on seeing another human being humiliated into submission. Those on this planet that truly know me, will be able to read between the lines.

I met Bo's primary spiritual teacher in Boston some 35 years ago when Nixon had earlier left the White House lawn on that helicopter. The teacher had recently come back from India and was now doing tours around the country. And I remember how we were discussing Nixon's total fall from public grace, and what stuck most in my mind are these paraphrased words: That Nixon could chose to let this catastrophe become just the grace he needed.

Not one person needing air on this planet does not have lurking within him- or herself some karmic issue, which our true Self may wish to have addressed in these auspicious times. Since we can call this time on our planet a Kali yuga, and since I do know very well Bo's & Sita's faith, then all this drama here can be a transforming/integrating tool for everyone involved. Just like many on this planet don't seem to be grasping the simple cause-effect truth to global warming and social pandemics, and many of us would wish for our idiotic and self-centered governments and industry to wake up and smell the coffee, the real work is how we individually deal with our own footprints on the planet.

So my humble and unasked for suggestion here is for you to see how the situation from Kindness House and with Bo can make you a more aware person on the planet, and if that includes publicly getting angry at Bo, go for it. Just remember that words spoken out of anger no matter how self-justified, often perhaps due to a sense of loss or fear, generally wind up on your own doorstep. It takes a remarkably humble person in our world so filled with people who, out of their own issues, salivate after another's fall from public grace, to be nakedly angry with great dispassionate love as the true motivator. The number of people on this planet who are personally self-realized in this way, well, the probability is probably pretty low. But like the Dalai Lama and others like Carl Jung have suggested, we all at any moment can chose to become anything we wish. Being *born again* is not a one-time event in life, to be looked back upon with dogmatic fervor. It is an event that has the probability of occurring with each and every heartbeat or breath of that person's life.

See, Kevin, you inspired me with your words directed at me to go a bit deeper into my own heart, and for that I am grateful to you.
Thank you.

With apologies, I want to point out that, in the post before this one, I quote Bo Lozoff's words as they were quoted in another letter, higher up, and I failed to put his name at the end of the quote.

Danishauthor, I have really enjoyed your beautiful letters, and Kevin, I have enjoyed yours, in a different way. I think you are being honest and loving both; sometimes it's okay to be angry, and sometimes, as we grow, we begin to see enough that we become less angry. In this series of comments, I think a lot of people have needed to vent in one way or another. You have been honest and loving both.

Eklutna, you wrote: ...if we had the slightest idea of what love REALLY is, we would be completely shattered in our understanding.

Wow, that's it in a nutshell. And as you also wrote somewhere above, Bo is still teaching regardless of what he or anyone may suggest. Just look at this thread. We're all teachers to one another, trying not to get shattered by what love truly is.

I don't like the name of this article. All of us have not only 2 faces, but a whole archetypal host of them. Look at some of the images from the Vedas, of gods and goddesses and demons having lots of faces, and those are just the obvious ones. There's so much more, perhaps fearful of discovery, so it cloaks itself in shadows. Imagine someone like Christine Costner-Sizemore, the woman with multiple personality disorder (DID) in the middle of last century, on whose life was based the movie "The 3 Faces of Eve."

But we're all like that; perhaps not so dramatically. This world is so full of trauma that disintegrates personality structures that we've become deadened to most of it, and have even institutionalized it through a lot of dogmatic religions.

Then imagine yourself so filled with that love which Eklutna's teacher described as being "shattering." This *shattering* that such love engenders is hard to grasp when one is in the middle of it, for it is like a mother who demands agreement and cooperation of everyone in the household of the mind.

Kevin, I’m not going to argue with you about who knows Bo better.

I don’t claim to know him better than you, or anyone else. My point was to share my own experience, which for sake of clarification, was for the exact duration I’ve indicated --3 months. Bo arrived home 3 days before I arrived in NC in late Sept., and I left just after the New Year. Bo was there for all but a few days around Christmas when I house-sat for him and Sita. With the exception of the couple days you helped raise walls on the cabin, you saw me primarily in the office because these were mail days when extra help was needed inside. But after the first five weeks, the vast majority of the work I did was transferred outside to help Bo fulltime building the cabin. Yes, sunup to sundown. Usually just us, mostly in silence. And I reiterate, I never felt unsafe, or threatened. It was a rich and enjoyable learning experience, for which I’ve given gratitude to HKF, and God numerous times.

No; I was never at KH, which I’ve already stated.

My purpose is not to defend Bo against anyone. Just as you do, I love him and want healing for him and all involved. However, I would be remiss as Bo’s –and Sita’s -- friend not to offer up my perspective on the Bo that I do know.

I found out about it, because I have kept in touch with the Lozoffs, and have a Reiki relationship with them. My friend Bo contacted me to let me know that things were in a bad way at HKF, because he knows that I care about all of them, and it’s a natural response for friends to reach out to friends. He asked me for nothing, suggested nothing.

It’s futile to maintain a debate here. I responded as a friend, because it appeared to me that Eklutna was insinuating criminal incarceration and from my perspective, behaving unprofessionally alarmist. I also wished to say that my own feminine wounds had healed greatly due in part through my study and practice of Bo’s teachings.

I believe you that you think you know him best and therefore are doing the right thing. I simply don’t agree.

I officially declare to disappoint Eklutna and post no more on this blog. Peace and Blessings, Becky

Eklutna gratefully accepts your disapprobation, and humbly requests to know when this forum became about her. She also begs leave to point out--again--that no accusations have been made, although comparisons of typologies have been drawn and light has--hopefully--been shed, at least for some of us here. What other recourse is there than for some of us to speak our truths and warn others?

My name is Huy Pham, and I was a resident of Kindness House for almost a year from the summer of 2004 to April 2005 when I was 25.

I know I am finding about this article way after the fact but I feel I need to add some insight to the record. I lived there primarily as an intern to get non-profit experience and secondarily to experience a lifestyle that would help me become a more kind, loving, and mature human being, as well as live a responsible, simple and ecological lifestyle.

I am really shocked and confused from reading the article. I cannot comment on the sexual allegations because I had absolutely no idea of that during my stay there. But I am really sad and feel really let down to discover this.

As for Bo's relationship with Kevin (who was living there at the time I was, and Charles too), that is an issue between them that most of the volunteers were not a part of. I have to say that I love Kevin very much as well as Bo, and it breaks my heart to read about this turmoil between them.

I do want to focus on what kind of picture the article was trying to portray. First I must say that in no way am I a religious person at all, but I do find ideas in various religious teachings very beneficial to my life. My interpretation of this article was that the author was trying to sensationalize Bo as another egomaniacal, nutty cult leader with oppressive rules and that life was this intolerable experience at Kindness House. Yes there were many rules (some of which I broke more than once), but they were there because to help you become more disciplined, clear headed, and free of desires that restrain us (materialism, addictions, bad habits) so that we can be more open human beings that are less selfish and more compassionate. The rules were also there to promote simple and ecological living...which is in fact very trendy nowadays and not just a cultish or monastery type thing to do.

People came there to take part in an experiment…a social and personal one. We had to wake up at 6am for ½ hour meditation followed by a half hour discussion of spiritual readings, which Bo primarily led. After that we had silence, which was quiet time or work time until breakfast bell when we could speak. I miss that quiet time. We had work until evening, which was around 6pm. After dinner, we would all get together and play outside, card games, etc. For me, it was very much idyllic with a strong undercurrent of spirituality underneath. Thinking back 3 years later, I feel it should have been more strict actually. Maybe I enjoyed myself way too much. I feel like I “got away” with too much. I wanted to get away from my conventional, materialistic life yet I still found certain times to indulge in those aspects.

The work was amazing. I learned so many skills such as working in the garden, picking fruit, cutting down dead trees, operating machinery, carpentry, baking, cooking, etc. We went picking blueberries every day during August.

I was yelled at by Bo once. But I deserved it. I did something that theoretically could’ve gotten Kevin in trouble. Bo yelled at me not from anger but more righteous indignance. I would have yelled too if I were him. He questioned what I was doing at Kindness House if I was not there for the benefit of the people they were trying to serve. The management seriously questioned whether or not I should be allowed to stay there and they had every reason too. I had gotten too comfortable, and the whole point of being there was to be constantly uncomfortable in order to grow as a human being.

Bo is really funny. If he ever referred to Oprah as Satan, then I can bet my life on it that he was joking about it. He had very, very strong convictions and viewpoints, but I never felt that he forced me to conform to his way of thinking. I always felt more guided by him than anything, and challenged more than forced. I love Bo, but I NEVER was blindly putting him on a pedestal. He has his faults yes, but to say that is to totally patronize and marginalize him. He, Sita, and Catherine have sacrificed and done greater work more than all of us somehow involved with this put together. I am a graduate student now studying Public and nonprofit administration, and considering their work, they did a great job up until they had to close Kindness House. Running a national/semi-international organization for over 14 years with no real model to follow and only 3 core staff?

No one was ever forced to stay there. No one was ever forced to do anything. We had the option to leave anytime. We had tasks to do, and certain rules of conduct. If we didn’t abide by them we were asked to leave. Hmm, sounds like a…job?

Bo always wanted to make the place better and to fit his vision on what community living should be like. I really feel like none of us were cut out to fit his vision. We were too modernized, too weak, too indulgent, and too much a product of Western living. We had DSL for gods sake. I never had DSL until then.

Maybe Bo was yelling at because he really wanted us to change and grow, but not because he was an egomaniac who tried to conform us to his idea. He loved us. He really did love us. He really believed in tough love because that was what our lazy asses needed. The best dancers are the ones who have teachers that push them and yell at them to be their best. Sometimes that’s what it takes.

I also wanted to reiterate that this was my experience as a volunteer, and that I was not privy to much of the behind the scenes occurences. I felt that Kindness House and Human Kindness Foundation needed to be seriously set apart from cultish institutions. In no way do I defend the sexual activities that Bo conducted, nor do I want to marginalize the hurt and pain that those women have experienced.