::::Kind of hate to say this, I think the article is definitely leaning towards non-neutrality now.  I still fail to see why an opinion by a single author, who claims knowledge that cannot be verified, and was probably not collected reliably, neutral.  The original complaint was that the article was very non-neutral.  Is this one author's viewpoint signficant, especially since it's not about the subject Gurumayi, but about a presumed group of people, for which we have no information.  This statement might make more sense if we had some definitive statements that people were poor were turned away from the ashram, or not allowed to join, or abused.  Certainly Szabo might have something to say about how non-wealthy devotees were treated, or whether or not non-wealthy people were even allowed to become devotees.  The insecure remark seems petty at best.  I read the LuLu article briefly, and the author (not the journal) seems to conclude that LuLui is rich, successful and insecure which may explain why he seems to assume that most of her 70000 devotees are similar.  Hardly a logical or scholarly conclusion.  Long story short (too late I know), I'm failing to see what controversy you are trying to document.   Are we trying to show that rich, successful, insecure devotees are taken advantage of.  Or are they treated differently?  Are the rest of the devotees treated in a disrespectful manner simply because they are not rich, successful and insecure?  Please excuse the length of this reply (and the length of all other replies), I'm mostly thinking out loud.  I'm mostly at a loss to see what we are trying to present here.