Sex, Lies, and Two Hindu Gurus — Telling Their Secrets and Finding My Truth

by Karen Jonson

  I realized I needed a more effective way to distribute the information I was collecting. I started a Facebook page called “The Truth Project for Barsana Dham and JKP.” As soon as the page was up, other people started adding their stories, such as a young man who had participated in temple events when he was young and felt used by the experience. A man from India posted a document that had circulated around India about Kripalu’s rapist past. I received many comments from people thanking me for sharing the information and telling me they thought I was brave for standing up to such a corrupt organization.

  I received a great deal of support from many people for the Facebook page. I even received some great information from others, including a document that had been sent out years ago in India by people trying to warn others about Kripalu. An Indian friend translated the document for me.

  “Alert. Alert. Alert. Here is information about the human demon — Kaliyug Chaitanya Mahaprabhu — the fake Jagadguru — Kripalu’s deceptive conduct.

  “This notice is for all of the religious people in this area to inform them that a man calling himself a ‘Jagadguru’ is living here and there in these places (Raigurth, Vilaspur, Mugali, Raipur, Rajnundgav, and Bhatchara). This Alert is to inform good people about him. A pundit from Kashi was contacted to confirm this information. Kripalu does kirtan (chanting) and has a little knowledge of Sanskrit. So people go to hear him. It is known that during one kirtan in Kanpur he claimed to make a girl feel like a gopi and himself to feel like Krishna. Then he kissed her and engaged in immoral behavior with her (had sex). When this happened many people got angry. So someone threw acid in his face during a ras leela. The skin around his eyes was damaged, but he got treatment. However, there is still one small spot from the acid below his left eye. That is the mark that identifies him as the one who performed these immoral activities (with underage girls). He tried to pretend that that mark is some disease. He has used the title of ‘Jagadguru,’ which he had never received, but with which he’s trying to cheat the people. According to the Kashi Vidwat Parishat (who he claims gave him the title), he was never given the designation of Jagadguru. He made it up. He artificially awarded this upadhi (title) to himself. Related to his man, on the 28th of February [year unknown], a journal article (page 853) was published to inform the world (about him). The title of the article was: ‘God Save Us From this Extremely Demonic Mahatma.

  “A journalist received a letter that was written by one devotee and it’s described here. The person who wrote the letter one time saw this mahatma doing kirtan, during which he became unconscious, fell on ground, and had tears coming out of his eyes. So the man became impressed and accepted him as his guru, and he (Kripalu) accepted him as his devotee. But later he saw the man’s true character and behavior and was shocked. Then he started thinking all kinds of thoughts about him; then he got scared. He felt that if he told anyone he would be committing ‘guru aparadh’ (a transgression against a guru). At that time, Kripalu was staying at many rich people’s homes and giving a lot of eloquent lectures, and he was impressing the people. But he was playing with the people’s emotions and stating that he himself was the avatar of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. When that devotee (who wrote the letter) was staying with him day and night very close to him, he realized his character and manner of dressing, which was exactly like family man. But his lustful behavior was at a peak level. During the day, he was eating 100 pan with nicotine. And he was raping beautiful pious young girls and taking their virginity. All these things he saw with his own eyes and quit his association and went away from him. After three months this devotee wrote the letter. At that time, the guru was staying at a lawyer’s home. The devotee wrote to Kripalu: He stated that his behavior is not that of a real mahaprabhu and he gave the example of a true mahaprabhu from Gosai Chalissa (Ram charan punkaj anurag…).?

  “Because of his eloquent lectures, people were becoming impressed and inviting him to stay in their homes. But at that time he was taking advantage of the innocent beautiful young girls and destroying their virginity after telling them: ‘I will destroy your material desire and I will reveal God to you.’ Innocent girls did not understand, and under his influence were having sex with him.?Wherever he was staying, his sexual behavior with the girls was getting worse and worse. Those innocent people were not recognizing his behavior and were thinking about guru aparad,h and so did not expose his behavior.

  “You can check out this particular article and whatever is described here in the ‘Kalyan Journal.’ It was published by Gita Press. After noticing this article, it was made public.?Now we are sharing this information to alert people about this bad demonic person. If you go for kirtan, be aware of the true nature of this ‘religion.’ Do not let your mothers and sisters anywhere near this deceptive person, who has obsessive sexual desires. You can identify him by the mark below his left eyes. [Signed by the authors of this Alert: the names were ineligible.]

  Clearly, Barsana Dham was not happy about my Facebook page—and the many revelations that exposed them. On 1 September 2010, I received an email from a woman living in the ashram. She wrote, “You don’t know what you are talking about,” in the subject line. The body said: “You are part of spreading poison about Barsana Dham. It’s such a shame when you don’t know any facts just the rantings of disgruntled people. You’re taking their words as facts. Why don’t you get the facts first?”

  I wrote back: “What are the facts? Please provide your sources as well. Thanks.”

  She didn’t send any. We exchanged a few more emails, but she continued to claim I was “out to do as much damage as possible to Barsana Dham.”

  I ended the conversation: “The gurus are the ones who have done all the damage already.”

  97

  Uncivil Behavior

  When Lawyers Play Dirty

  I LEARNED THE HARD WAY ABOUT the differences between criminal and civil court cases.

  In criminal cases, there are strict rules regarding whom the defense lawyers can deposition (interview) and whom they cannot. For example, defense lawyers do not have access to the state’s witnesses. In civil cases, however, the defense lawyers can deposition almost anyone they want to, no matter how remotely related the person may be to the case. As one lawyer told me, they could interview a neighbor’s gardener if they wanted to.

  Despite the rules, Prakash’s defense lawyers tried to talk to the state’s two female witnesses in his criminal case. They attempted to contact both women, even hiring private detectives in Seattle to track them down. They became so aggressive that the DA finally told them pointblank to leave her witnesses alone. And they did—for two years. Then a potential jackpot fell into their laps.

  In March 2010, an ex-JKP devotee launched a civil suit against Prakash and seven members of the Barsana Dham organization. Since she could not find a lawyer to take on what some characterized a “frivolous lawsuit,” the woman filed pro se, which means she advocated on her own behalf rather than being represented by a lawyer.

  With the filing of that civil complaint, all bets were off from Barsana Dham’s perspective. They could deposition anyone they wanted to—claiming it was for the civil suit. One of Prakash’s lawyers, Randy Levitt, immediately sent out subpoenas to six people—the three women related to the criminal trial, who were abused by Prakash as children (Kate, Shyama, and Vesla) and their significant others.

  Five of the six people subpoenaed had absolutely nothing to do with the ex-devotee filing the civil case. In fact, the three men subpoenaed didn’t even know her. It was clear Randy, the attorney for Barsana Dham, was taking full advantage of the more lenient rules of civil law to gain access to the witnesses involved in the criminal case. What Prakash’s defense team did not count on was the determination of the three girls to not simply roll over and play dead.

  The depositions for Kate and her husband were scheduled first. I emailed Melina, a lawyer I had met along the way who had once been a prosecutor in San Antonio. I explained the situation and
asked what Kate should do. She wrote back saying: “Maybe they can quash the depositions.” “Quash” means to legally deny an action requested.

  Kate began researching how to quash a deposition, and found a lawsuit in which the wife of a CEO of Enron, a large energy company in Texas, had successfully quashed a deposition that lawyers had requested of her related to her husband’s legal problems. Kate used the document as her template and created motions to quash for herself and her husband, which she then filed with the State of Washington, where she lived. The motions to quash were simple and straightforward:

  “Kate does not have any knowledge of the events alleged in the Plaintiff’s civil action and JKP Barsana Dham has failed to show that she has. Kate’s only significant interaction with the plaintiff was as a child neighbor before the year 1997, when she moved away at 18 years old. Kate had no association with the Plaintiff as an adult between the years of 1997 and 2007 and has not lived near her or had any interaction with the Plaintiff as an adult during the years she has made her claims.”

  Kate notified Randy that she had filed the motions and, as such, would not be appearing for the scheduled deposition until she heard back from the Washington judge. But Randy did not want to let her off the hook, even though she was following legal procedure. He wrote back, insisting that Kate did not understand the rules of law and that she and her husband were still required to appear at the deposition as scheduled, despite her motions to quash. Finally, Kate just ignored his manipulating emails. Nonetheless, Randy flew to Washington, wasting his time and Barsana Dham’s money, and even tried to charge Kate and her husband for the trip, filing a motion to that end.

  Within a few weeks Kate received news from the Washington Court. Both her deposition and her husband’s had successfully been quashed. The depositions filed for her sister and brother-in-law were also successfully quashed. The judge’s ruling on JKP’s lawyer’s motion stated:

  “Defendants sought attorney fees and expenses because their counsel flew from Texas to Seattle to take the depositions of Kathryn Tonnessen and Dylan Peterson. Defendants also sought an order of contempt. The court declines to award attorney fees or to hold the witnesses in contempt. They properly filed motions to quash the subpoenas, and did not act unreasonably in failing to appear for depositions before the court had ruled on their motions to quash.”

  After her victory Kate joked, “I had the best lawyers money could buy”—which was more than Prakash could say.

  98

  Justice Delayed

  Out of Sight, Out of Mind

  CRIMINAL TRIAL DELAYS ARE LIKE a punch in the gut—or like running on a people mover at the airport and then it ends.

  When a trial date is set, your consciousness becomes focused on that date. Your mind starts gearing up for the battle. You start rearranging your life for the event. Then when the date is canceled and reset, you feel deflated, empty, and off center.

  Those of us waiting for Prakash’s trial came to understand that a few delays are expected in every trial. Cancellations can happen for any number of reasons, such as scheduling conflicts between the various lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and witnesses. Sometimes trials are delayed at the request of the defendant who hires a new lawyer or finds new evidence. Rarely do witnesses for the state request delays. In our case, neither of the two young women who were official witnesses, nor any potential supporting witnesses ever requested a trial delay.

  Meanwhile, the defense team sought every possible manner of delay. For starters, during the entire first year following his arrest, Prakash’s lawyers spent hours of the court’s time and resources on a fruitless quest to get him back into Barsana Dham. During that time, pre-trial hearings for the criminal case were repeatedly cancelled.

  The first trial date was 2 November 2009—about a year and a half after his arrest. I occasionally checked the Hays County website for updates. About a month before the trial date, there was a flurry of paper shuffling, instigated by his lawyers. When I checked back a few days later I found the word “Cancelled” next to the date of the trial, and a new trial date of 11 January 2010.

  What had happened? What did this mean? Everyone in our ex-devotee network was worried. We heard Barsana Dham was publically blaming the witnesses, claiming the trial was delayed because Kate had just had a baby. It was true that Kate had given birth to her first child in mid-September. We’d had many discussions about the issues of her traveling cross-country so soon with a newborn baby. But at no time did she or any other witnesses request a delay. In fact, the prosecution was clearly planning to move forward, because the DA had just filed subpoenas for fourteen witnesses. While Kate was not one of the two official witnesses in the case, she would become a central figure, because Prakash’s whole case was: “Kate made the girls do it.”

  Then the trial was pushed back again—this time all the way to April because, according to his lawyers, Prakash had undergone back surgery in India and was now bedridden. The timing, of course, was suspicious. My prediction that Prakash would have a “medical crisis” before the trial had come true.

  A February 25th article in the Austin American-Statesman under the headline “Swami Lawyers Ask for Another Delay” reported on the trial date change:

  “Attorneys for Prakashanand Saraswati, the Hindu leader who stands accused of groping two under-aged girls in the 1990s, have asked for another delay in the holy man’s trial in Hays County.

  “According to court documents filed last week, the founder and spiritual leader of Barsana Dham, the 200-acre ashram south of Austin, has been spending most of his time in India, where, the filings say, he underwent surgery on his lower back. A note from Dr. S.S. Kale of the All India Institute of Medical Science described the January operation as ‘serious’ and said it took five hours to complete.

  “Kale added that Prakashanand, also known to his followers as Shree Swamiji, should ‘avoid traveling and have complete rest for the next three to four months’ and shouldn’t sit for more than a half-hour at a time. ‘The defendant is a very elderly individual,’ the filing said. ‘Traveling from India to the United States takes approximately 18 hours’ and thus ‘renders a trial in April 2010 a virtual impossibility.’”

  The trial date was reset for 20 September 2010, but that was eventually cancelled due to a scheduling conflict with the judge. The next trial was set for 1 November 2010—one year after the original trial date and two and a half years since Prakash’s arrest. The date was changed yet again. Prakash was still sending over letters saying he was unable to fly to the U.S. due to ongoing back pain. The new trial date was now 24 January 2011.

  By this time, we had almost completely lost hope that a trial would ever take place. It seemed that the Hays County Court was going to grant Prakash every delay, now that he allegedly had permanent “health issues.” We were sick with worry that he would never actually have to sit in a courtroom and be judged by a jury of his peers.

  Then Prakash did something unbelievably stupid.

  99

  Caught!

  Prakash’s Critical Misstep

  IN EARLY OCTOBER 2010, Prakash flew back to the U.S.

  Barsana Dham had scheduled its annual Intensive program for one week in early October. The greatly diminished event, which had formerly been three weeks long, was to feature a special guest: Prakash himself. His devotees from various countries, including Ireland and New Zealand, were called and told to come and see him, because “it could be their last chance.”

  In the summer of 2010, I heard that followers were being assured that Prakash would attend the Intensive. I assumed they were just saying this to bolster confidence among the devotees, and that they would simply pull the plug on his trip at the last minute, citing his alleged health issues. In the meantime, devotees would be happy thinking he was coming to Austin. It was a great PR move—until it backfired.

  Late in the summer, an anonymous contact in India sent me links to photos of Prakash in various places in north India�
�places that were clearly not his bed. The photos showed him in satsang in his Barsana ashram. In one he was sitting in a chair close to Kripalu, and standing right behind him during the arti ceremony in another. Two other photos showed him standing next to Kripalu at an event in Kunda, 200 miles from Barsana.

  I sent the links to the Cathy, who was, narurally, very interested in this new evidence. She even went online herself and discovered a few more photos of him gallivanting around India, including in Mussoorie, which is several hours from both Barsana and Kunda, and only accessible by car. He looked healthy and happy.

  I informed Cathy we were hearing rumors about him coming to Austin for the October event. She told me to keep her posted if I heard anything else. But neither of us ever dreamed he would actually return. On Saturday, October 2nd, on the way to Kathi’s house for a visit, I drove by the house where Prakash stayed when he was in Austin. There were four cars parked in the back of the house and obvious activity inside. Was he really coming?

  The next day, I received a message from my contact inside the ashram: “He’s here.”

  I was in shock. I couldn’t believe he’d actually done it: flaunted the law and returned to the U.S. Was he really that stupid? Or was he just that narcissistic and confident in his invincibility as a god?

  My heart raced and my brain whirled. I emailed our network, then Cathy: “Prakash is in Austin right now—staying at Marsha’s house on Rural Route 1826. He arrived either yesterday or today. He is here for Barsana Dham’s annual Intensive. The dates of the event are Oct 2nd to 9th. He’ll likely leave Austin on the 9th or 10th. So if you are going to do anything you have to act fast.”