This epistle to a British Member of Parliament was composed by Kevin R. D. Shepherd in November 2008, and describes various anomalies represented by the Findhorn Foundation. The epistle was written in counter to a very misleading letter from the Findhorn Foundation Director Bettina Jespersen. The Jespersen letter is part of a significant correspondence with British solicitors that is reproduced in article 1 on this website.

CONTENTS  KEY
3.1        Tyrannical   Officials  in  the  Findhorn  Foundation
3.2        Significant   Dissidents
3.3        The   Abortive   Reconciliation  Meeting
3.4        The   Critical  Corpus  and  Evasion
3.5        Communications   to  Public  Officials  and  Bodies
3.6        A  Relevant   File  Unknown  to  the  Findhorn  Foundation
3.7        Angus   Robertson   MP
3.8        The   Findhorn   Foundation Trustees
3.9        When The   Vital   Issue   Was  Closed
3.10      Commercial   Sentiments   and   Actual   Reality
3.11      The   Unmerited  Stigma  Continues
3.12      Suppression  of   Dissident  Account  Involved  Aggression
3.13      UNESCO   and   the  DPI
3.14      The   Chairman  of  FAIR
3.15      Not   To  Be  So  Easily  Discounted
3.16      Janice   Dolley   and   David  Lorimer
3.17      Foundation  Trustee   in  Defence  of  Illegal  Drugs
3.18      Pro-LSD   Versus  Anti-LSD
3.19      Dismissal  of  Dialogue  and  Convergence  with  the  SMN

Introduction
 
Robert  Walter  is  the  Conservative  MP  for  Dorset  North.  He was one of those politicians  who responded to the  2006  circulars of  Kevin (R. D.) Shepherd. At a later date, in  2008  he interviewed his constituent Kate Thomas (Jean Shepherd) and  agreed  that  her  complaint  about  the  Findhorn Foundation  required due attention. On her behalf,  Robert Walter contacted  both  UNESCO  and  the Findhorn Foundation, evoking a brief response from the former. More difficulty was encountered with the latter organisation, who were very slow to reply, and whose documents proved unconvincing.

The  letter  to Robert Walter from  Kevin Shepherd that is reproduced below  is dated  27/11/2008, and was composed  by  way  of  commentary  on  a  recent and  inadequate response to Robert  Walter  from Bettina Jespersen, the Findhorn  Foundation  Director. See  further articles 1 and 2.7  on  this  website. The letter from Jespersen is reproduced in 1.16.

LETTER  TO  ROBERT  WALTER  MP  ON  THE  FINDHORN  FOUNDATION

Dear  Robert  Walter  MP,

RE  FINDHORN  FOUNDATION

My mother Jean Shepherd has asked me to reply to your kind covering letter of 21/11/2008 along with the enclosed response from Bettina Jespersen (Findhorn Foundation Director) dated 18/11/2008. This is because I am closely acquainted with the documentation and events  involved.

The response from the Findhorn Foundation to yourself is very misleading and  basically deficient in the coverage of relevant events. I here propose to list the contradictions and undisclosed complexities which you may find helpful  for  future  reference:

3.1   Tyrannical  Officials  in  the  Findhorn  Foundation

There is indeed an extensive correspondence dating back to 1988.  Yet Jespersen misleadingly states that “several attempts were made on both sides to resolve the situation.” Many attempts at reconciliation were made by my mother (Jean Shepherd, alias Kate Thomas), but the resistance from the Foundation staff was extreme, especially the Director Judy Buhler-McAllister, who was in office for several years during the 1990s. That former Director arbitrarily expelled my mother from Open Community  membership  in January 1994. This was a drastic form of suppression,  and  occurred in defiance of the legitimate concern about  another woman who had been harassed by Foundation staff (and who had needed medical attention as a consequence).

An accomplice to this tyrannical  measure  was  Eric Franciscus, the  influential head of “Education” at the Foundation.  An extant  tape recording, dating  to  March 1994, is confirmation of  the  extremist tactic. The tape recording  was made at  a cafe in  Forres, and  profiles  a  conversation  between Franciscus  and  my mother. That  dictatorial official  would  only consent  to see  her  once, and in a public place, not within the Foundation precincts from which she was arbitrarily banned by him.

This was deliberate segregation for dubious reasons, with Franciscus contriving behind her back a stigma which she was unable to openly confront because of management  tactics. His attitude does not  fit  rational standards. Franciscus was the  major source of  the  distorted  profile of  my  mother  that became  current  within  the Findhorn Foundation.  It  was this man who had formerly  blocked her associate  membership.

3.2    Significant   Dissidents

Much of the earlier correspondence is detailed in the book by Stephen Castro that was published at Forres in 1996. The volume was entitled Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation. The response of the Foundation staff to this book was irrational and proscribing. It was unofficially banned by them. That book depicted in detail the events of preceding years concerning my mother and other dissidents and victims of the Foundation.

Jill  Rathbone

One of those victims, Jill Rathbone, was  successful in  a  legal action against  the  Moray Steiner School, who were  in such close collaboration with the Foundation that they had excluded Rathbone from  her rightful post in their establishment due to  the  hostile intrigue  of the Foundation staff. The sole reason for the  intrigue was that  schoolteacher Jill  Rathbone  was a  friend of  my mother and vouched for the latter’s integrity. 

Stephen J. Castro was a disillusioned ex-member of the Foundation. He  produced  an  annotated and indexed book  that  has  since  proved  of  substantial   use  to  academic  and  other  investigators.  He eventually became a   civil   servant   with   the   Inland  Revenue.  His book has been  endorsed  by  a favourable review  in  the  ICSA  journal of international renown. This despite the  ignoble attempt  of the Foundation management  to  snub that book  on  the  internet  as  being  unworthy of  review.

3.3   The  Abortive  Reconciliation  Meeting

The only two members of the Foundation who made any serious attempt to conciliate with my mother were the late  Jeremy  Slocombe  and  Ken Hills (a Trustee).  Their  concessions were made after the Castro book was published. Slocombe proved superficial, being more concerned about political repercussions  of the adverse publicity gained by the Foundation in the press. Hills was more consistent, but betrayed his own sense of scruple in January 1999, when an abortive  event officially known as the “complaints and reconciliation meeting” entailed the categorical blacklisting of three dissidents who were present with the collaboration of Hills.

The accusations of the Foundation  official  in  charge were based on new age beliefs about “energies.” The “energies” of dissidents were depicted as hopelessly negative. The criteria for indictment were preposterous. Hills backed down and remained silent, being  in  fear of  management disapproval.

This  event  involved the unrelenting  stigma of a distressed woman who  had years earlier  been victimised by Eric  Franciscus for daring to speak out about  the  injustice perpetrated against my mother. The revealing event of Jan. 1999 has been described in a published book (Shepherd, Pointed Observations, 2005, pp. 183-9) and on a website. Go to article 13 section 22 of  www.kevinrdshepherd.net. The overall title of that lengthy article is Findhorn  Foundation  Commercial  Mysticism (2008).

3.4   The  Critical  Corpus  and  Evasion

In  addition to the correspondence file and  1994 tape recording, there are also related documents, published books,  and  website  materials.  The Findhorn Foundation have customarily ignored this corpus,  and  have instead  preferred  to  adopt  an evasive policy for nearly twenty  years.   At  the  end of  the 1990s,  my mother’s health suffered  because of  Foundation hostility, and she  moved south from  Forres to Dorset.

In 2001 she was misled by a telephone conversation with Foundation staff to believe that  all  would be well  if she visited  them once  more.  Despite  warnings from others, she was prepared to believe this message, only to find upon arrival that there was no goodwill but instead continuing hostility and indifference. She became ill and returned home after a week. (Shepherd, Pointed Observations, 2005, pp. 180ff.)

Her efforts at reconciliation were further rewarded by  what  has  been viewed as a  diabolical   gesture of the Foundation  management  in 2002.  That  year  they chose to mount  an internet endorsement of a very hostile report by one of their zealous supporters, namely Bill Metcalf. The Castro book was declared by Metcalf to be unworthy of review, and my mother was denigrated as a troublemaker and also mistakenly described as an “ex-housemate.” This  libel  was  never  corrected, and the misapprehension has furthermore  been  appropriated  by an  extremist  sectarian [Gerald Joe Moreno] in America connected with  the controversial guru Sathya Sai Baba. The Findhorn Foundation  are responsible for  serious misrepresentations, and  have complicated  their  position to  an appreciable  extent.

3.5    Communications  to  Public  Officials  and  Bodies

The Jespersen letter to yourself evidences a major inaccuracy in the second paragraph.  She there says that my mother has written to many public officials and bodies.  It was not  primarily my mother who was involved in that capacity, but  myself. The sole exception was the Letter of Kate Thomas to UNESCO  (see 3. 11 below).

Furthermore, Jespersen gives the impression that 2004 was the endpoint in these matters, whereas in fact they commenced in 2006. Her brief and erroneous five line account of those occurrences can, to  say the least, be strongly faulted. She does not refer to any documents, and gives the impression that “others may have chosen not to respond after an initial assessment of the situation.” The truth may eventually  win over  the misrepresentation.  Amongst  the  documents  I  composed  in 2006 were  the  following:

            First  letter  to Tony  Blair (Prime  Minister)
            Second  letter to Tony Blair
            Letter  to  BBC Radio
            Letter to  the  Home Office: About  the  Findhorn  Foundation  and   UN
            Letters to  the  Office  of  the Scottish Charity Regulator

3.6    A   Relevant   File  Unknown  to  the  Findhorn  Foundation

The abovementioned documents can be found  at www.citizeninitiative.com.  The circulation of two  of those documents in printed format  aroused an  interest  that  is  ongoing, and this extends to  the Letter of Complaint to David Lorimer, which was also circulated and which relates strongly to the Findhorn Foundation. Several hundred recipients  were  initially  contacted, and since then many more have read the website continuation. Some parties like Moray Council were resistant to disquieting information, and failed to make any acknowledgment or reply. The reasons are known,  and  not particularly in their favour. Yet  there were numerous responses from politicians and academics, including university role specialists in different countries.  Your own generous response  was dated 28/04/2006.  

One may  believe Bettina Jespersen’s statement that “a few have asked us for clarification and were satisfied with our response and have dropped the matter.” Yet  she  implies that the dissident cause (or critical project in my case) exists in a vacuum.  She might  be shocked at the relevant file unknown to the Foundation, one which steadily grows and which  has at  the core a  strongly analytical  component resistant to the overtures of “holistic” commercialism and evasive “intentional community.”

The Findhorn Foundation long  ago relinquished  the  analytical  mode  in  preference for the “workshop” technique  and new age holistic  venture. Perhaps that  is why their Director  cannot  identify  the author of certain documents, and why  she  totally  fails to  cite  various  relevant  critical sources.

3.7    Angus  Robertson  MP

Jespersen invites you to approach their major political supporter, namely Angus Robertson, MP for Moray. Unfortunately, insofar  as  victim  dissidents are concerned, he is at a strong disadvantage. Robertson emerged as a Foundation supporter only in very recent years,  jettisoning the sceptical approach of  Dr. Winifred Ewing MSP, the  local  politician  who for long complained  about  Foundation tactics. His version of my mother will be in the idiom of Jespersen, inherited from the Foundation elite who have continually suppressed  protests at their dictatorial  and  evasive tendencies.

Like  Jespersen, Angus Robertson never met my mother or other dissidents, and he has doubtless been cued to believe that the strategy of avoiding “personal dialogue” is  appropriate  for  the intentional community. Yet  these  people  have  been advertising  for  many  years  their prowess in “conflict resolution” and presumed  achievements such as “unconditional love.”  Those  claims   are regarded   by critics  as   facesaver  myths.
 
3.8   The  Findhorn  Foundation  Trustees

An alternative is provided by  the  Foundation  Director. You are given the contact names of two longstanding Trustees of the Foundation, namely Edward Posey and Lady Diana Whitmore. Unfortunately, their  abilities  of  objective  appraisal  are  in strong doubt. These two entities are named in Castro’s Hypocrisy and Dissent (see the index, pp. 238, 240) as  being  amongst  the  elite Trustees who failed to respond to pressing requests for a democratic internal enquiry and  the investigation of complaints. The intentional community had no room for due  investigations, only  the intentions  of  the dictators. The panel of  Foundation Trustees  were a totally useless resort  in  cases  of  emergency, following  a party  line that  was  extremely rigid. 

Five  dissidents  could  get  nowhere by contacting  the Trustees, who referred all matters to the unyielding management. Everything was decided by the management, and there could be no appeal. The Trustees merely enjoyed status roles. Dissidents described them as callous,  unfeeling, and irresponsible.  Both  Posey and Whitmore have strong “new age” associations that do not necessarily command credence  elsewhere, and  their elevation (by Jespersen) above a  protesting  victim  in this instance  may  be considered  very  questionable in view of published  documentation.

3.9    When  The  Vital  Issue  Was  Closed

The Jespersen dismissal casually states that “from our point of view this issue was closed many years ago.” That is accurate enough, but  the  accompanying prohibition on “further personal dialogue” is more than slightly suspect. The reasons why the issue was closed do bear close inspection, and are sufficient to shatter the myth of holistic expertise and “spiritual community.”

The issue was effectively closed when my mother was  ruthlessly excluded from Open Community membership in January 1994.  She was originally stigmatised (a few years earlier)  because she opposed the excesses of new age entrepreneur Stanislav Grof, who strongly infiltrated the Foundation during the years 1989-93.  Grof Transpersonal Training Inc. was championed  by  Foundation Director Craig  Gibsone,  who became an ardent convert to that form of alternative therapy in 1989.

The objector  Kate Thomas was proven entirely correct when the Pathology Department at Edinburgh University produced  (in 1993) a negative report on the Grof  therapy known as Holotropic Breathwork, a blatant form of hyperventilation.  That  authoritative report  (from a Regius Professor in forensic medicine) galvanised even the Scottish Charities Office into extending a recommendation to suspend the hazardous activity.

The Findhorn Foundation management reluctantly complied, an event nevertheless attended by a defiant fringe contingent of  diehard  holotropic  breathwork  practitioners. The thwarted Craig  Gibsone subsequently resorted to “sustainability” as a career pursuit, which may  mean that  ecobiz  is another superficial  exercise for  the  elite excluders of dialogue.  Expect  only  the commercial monologue of the workshop  programme  and  CIFAL Findhorn Company  Ltd.

Gibsone  was  glorified, despite  his  major error as  an  influential  practitioner of  Grof  therapy, while Kate Thomas  was  stigmatised  and  suppressed  for daring  to  criticise  the  “spiritual”  hierarchy. Gibsone has even persisted in conducting  occasional Grof therapy workshops in more  recent  years,  being actively assisted  by  other  Foundation personnel, including Trustee  Michael Shaw.

3.10   Commercial  Sentiments  and  Actual  Reality

“We will be instructing our lawyers  to  respond directly  to Mrs. Shepherd” (letter from Bettina Jespersen to Robert Walter). The  difference  between commercial sentiments like Conflict Resolution and the actual reality  of  stigma, suppression,  and sustained conflict is sufficient to warn against acceptance of any slogan improvised by the Findhorn Foundation. Some close analysts  say  that   the basic  issue  stands  so  clearly revealed  that  the Foundation will never be able  to  escape the  grave implications  of  their  bad  treatment of  stigmatised  dissidents.  

3.11  The  Unmerited  Stigma  Continues

The  facesaving  last  sentence from  the  Jespersen response is a reminder of the acute deficiency in Findhorn Foundation policy. “We wish Mrs. Shepherd well in her advancing years and hope that she can finally put this matter to rest and find peace.” Jespersen fails to mention or cite the Letter of Kate Thomas to UNESCO (2007), composed by my mother, and available at www.citizeninitiative.com  (last tab). 

That epistle made clear that the victim was no longer seeking reconciliation (impossible with such an evasive community as the Findhorn Foundation), but instead wanted her name cleared of stigma. The last paragraph of  the relevant  epistle states: “I no longer seek reconciliation, but merely clearance of my name from unmerited stigma applied by devious Findhorn Foundation personnel.” 

Kate Thomas  should not be expected to  conveniently  die and  remain silent  while the unmerited stigma continues. The stigma has been in part maintained on the internet, and this version has been mentioned in a Wikipedia talk page by Grof  partisans, and from  that source  borrowed by an increasingly notorious sectarian web harasser (Gerald Joe Moreno), who recently added five copyrighted images of my mother to his brief  but hostile reference  inspired  by  the  Findhorn Foundation. As one writer has pointed out, the Foundation are now inseparably associated with the internet terrorist,  which  is  an unenviable  prospect for  any  NGO.

3.12   Suppression  of  Dissident  Account  Involved  Aggression

The  reprehensible  policy of  the  Findhorn  Foundation  against  dissidents  has for long  concerned observers.  I can here mention my own firsthand experience of this anomaly. For many years I  have been a witness to the extremist  policy, which during the 1990s manifested in a severe repression of my mother’s side of the argument. In 1992 her book The Destiny Challenge was published.  Chapter 14 detailed  the discrepant behaviour of Foundation personnel in her direction. 

The Foundation staff  attempted without success to place a legal interdict  upon  her  book, maintaining that chapter 14 was defamatory.  A very different  interpretation has been expressed  elsewhere. The relevant chapter is  indeed critical, but  stays within bounds. The author there relates her valid disagreement with Craig Gibsone over Grof therapy, touches upon  various questionable  features of attitude and practice within the community, and details  the aggressive  tactics  of  Eric  Franciscus  and his unpredictable  accomplice  Loren Stewart.

Subsequent events confirmed  that  her  complaints and observations were  justified. Her book was angrily suppressed  within  the Foundation, and  the  Foundation Trustee  Alex Walker  erroneously denied in  the local press  that  she had  ever  been a member. Kate Thomas was nevertheless  conciliatory, accepting Open Community membership in July 1993, though the general situation imposed by the staff was abortive (Castro, Hypocrisy and Dissent, pp. 112-114). Only six months later,  the  conspiring Director [Judy Buhler-McAllister] capriciously terminated  her Open Community affiliation.  The  only  role subsequently  permitted  her  on Foundation premises  was  that  of a  toilet  and  sink  cleaner.  She had  to live  with continual  stigma  and ostracism. This despite  the  fact  that  she  was  a  close  neighbour  and resident  of  Forres.  

There  was  a  protracted  phase of  hostile aggression from  an  American  member of  the Foundation staff.  I intended  to  get the local police to intervene in the aggression, but  my mother did  not wish for this, saying that intervention  would  only  increase  the aggression. So I  was  obliged to desist. 

All such events were concealed by the “spiritual community” image  of  the  deceptive organisation, who were intent upon gaining UN sanction and  the  advantages conferred. To such an extent indeed that they also concealed their dire economic  problems  incurred  through  mismanagement.  The  existing management  team were obliged  to resign  in  covert  disgrace,  at  the  time  when  NGO  status  was secured  in  1997.

3.13   UNESCO  and  the  DPI

The   response  recently  sent  to you  by  UNESCO  is  significant.  It   is  obvious that UNESCO wish  to steer  clear of the Findhorn Foundation problem, and their explicit disavowal of a connection implies that the Foundation should  not be able to claim the auspices of  UNESCO, as they have  been  known to do in the past. However, for the terse UNESCO reply to yourself to make any lasting sense, that bureaucracy  will have to omit  glorifying  references to  the  Findhorn Foundation from  their  website. Observers  believe  that  the overall response of UNESCO has been deficient, and one  meriting a separate investigation.

By comparison, the Department of Public Information  (DPI)  has  a  more  routine  status  in  the UN bureaucracy. The Findhorn  Foundation  have constantly invoked  DPI  associations as a sanction for their commercial programme.  In 2002, Dr. Winifred Ewing MSP attempted to elicit a reply from  the  DPI  (in New York) on  that  vexed  local Scottish  issue of  sanction, but  was  unsuccessful  (letter of John P. Greenaway to  Nicol  Stephen  MSP, dated 16/09/2007).  Dr. Ewing  asked  the  DPI  how  the Foundation had managed  to acquire UN affiliations, but  she  could  not  even  get  a  formal  acknowledgment.

3.14   The  Chairman  of  FAIR

The Jespersen epistle refers to  the  “many public officials and bodies” involved in correspondence which is largely misattributed to my mother. “Others may have chosen not to respond.” That remark implies failure for the largely misattributed correspondence, but  more  accurately  indicates the  facile manner in which the Foundation hierarchy  conceive  of events  with  which  they are  unfamiliar.

One  of the  eminent  persons who  responded  to the Letter of  Kate Thomas to UNESCO was the Hon. Tom Sackville, former MP and Home Office official, and  more  recently  Chairman of FAIR. He sent Kate Thomas a hand-written letter of sympathy dated 01/10/2007. Sackville  even  expressed his conclusion that  the Findhorn Foundation “should not be classed as an NGO.”  He  also urged  that  the Home Office should be tackled on such serious issues, himself being intimately familiar with the degree of laxity  prevailing  in  that disputed department with  regard  to  the incorrect behaviour  of  suspect organisations.

3.15   Not  To  Be  So  Easily  Discounted

A  number of  analytical  observers have considered the  “dissident Kate Thomas” case to be one of the most remarkable instances of suppression within the new age or “alternative community” field of activity. The details will not vanish so obligingly for the Findhorn Foundation management  and  their proliferating  commercial interests. 

3.16   Janice  Dolley  and  David  Lorimer

A closely related matter pertains to the presence of a Foundation Trustee in a set-up associated with the Scientific and Medical Network (SMN).  This is an alternative organisation creating suspicion amongst orthodox scientists. Trustee Janice Dolley features in the  later phase Foundation correspondence with my mother, being notably concerned to pardon the negligence of  the Foundation in not making due rectifications, and employing in this respect  the  new age  jargon  preferred  in those circles. That Foundation Trustee  has  also  been an official  in the Wrekin Trust, yet another  alternative  organisation based  in  England  and  which  has  a close connection with the  SMN. The  presiding  influence  for  both of  these organisations over many years has been David Lorimer. 

The  Findhorn Foundation  membership  are  strongly  implicated  as subscribers to  Wrekin Trust and SMN, and Dolley’s  mediating  role is accordingly significant. She is currently described on zoominfo.com as a Board Member and Trustee of the Findhorn Foundation. Dolley  has  not responded to two  relevant protesting documents  that  can be found on the internet, both written by myself  in support of my mother. There is  also the report  in the Letter of Kate Thomas to UNESCO that in 2005, “this Foundation Trustee [Janice Dolley] now transpired to  be  in strong support of a policy to discriminate  against  me, including  my objection  to  the  use of illegal drugs.”

3.17    Foundation  Trustee  in  Defence  of  Illegal  Drugs

My Letter  of  Complaint  to  David  Lorimer  (2005) amounted to a critique of certain alternative organisations, mainly the Findhorn Foundation and  SMN.  That  document included reference to Janice Dolley, whose telephone conversations with my mother in 2005 were alarming.  Dolley had become an official  in the new University for Spirit Forum (USF), a branch of the Wrekin Trust. That enterprise has since been twice renamed and has apparently met with problems. It is currently known as Wrekin Forum.  The Letter of  Complaint  reported the following  emphases of  Dolley  to my mother: 

“In an official capacity for the USF, she [Dolley] spoke as a staunch partisan of the Findhorn Foundation (abbreviation FF), and informed Thomas that she  is a Trustee of the FF. The FF are said to be represented and affiliated in USF membership.  Dolley added that certain prominent members of the FF were also USF associates, and would not wish Thomas to become an associate....

"There was  no scruple  in  the argument of Dolley, only  the  standard ‘new age’ refrain of nonjudgmentalism, which is reflected in the policy of the USF. She specifically referred  in  this context to the issue of drug ingestion, which covers illegal drugs. Such drugs are effectively legalised by her argument, as Dolley said  that the USF must not criticise any ‘alternative’ approach. She even mentioned Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) in a validating context, as having had a mystical experience after taking LSD. Thus  the  Ram Dass  trend and  all other  suspect activities and claims are validated by the USF approach, which downgrades an intending member who is critical of the drugs lobby and the breathwork commerce of Grof and his supporters.” (Letter of Complaint, printed booklet version, p. 2.)

3.18   Pro-LSD  Versus  Anti-LSD

Another  factor  of  grievance  is  that  the SMN  have  been  featuring  for  several years on their  website an article by  the leading  American LSD promoter, namely  Dr. Christopher Bache. That  article  was written  in response to a protesting contribution in the SMN journal from my  mother (Kate Thomas). David Lorimer has neglected  to include  the relevant articles by Kate Thomas (written before she resigned from the SMN  in 2004 on a point of principle). The pro-LSD argument has thus been effectively  glorified for  internet reception at  the expense of  the Thomas protest.

The total  evasionism of  Janice Dolley  and David Lorimer (who are close colleagues) converges with the Findhorn Foundation evasion and stigma in relation to Kate Thomas. The adverse components of this disconcerting situation are too closely linked for them to be regarded as separate (in the case of my mother). The Findhorn Foundation are accordingly  open to  accusations of complicity with regard to the grave social issue of LSD support.  Meaning in this  instance  the  description and promotion of the danger  drug  LSD  as a “spiritual path” inspiration  and  therapy.

The trite SMN disclaimer of responsibility  for  website articles  featured  is regarded  as  a  ruse  by critics. The SMN  surely do  have  an  ethical  responsibility  for  so  visibly suggesting  to  a  public audience  the  priority of  the  pro-LSD argument  over  the  anti-LSD argument. For the  two  relevant articles by Kate Thomas, see  Neglected Papers Against  Grof  Therapy .

3.19    Dismissal  of  Dialogue  and  Convergence  with  the  SMN

The  Findhorn  Foundation  do  not  promote  drugs. However,  their  link  via their Trustee and Board Member Janice  Dolley  with subscription activity  in  two  closely associated organisations is a contradictory matter.  The overall situation is sufficient to  cast  grave reflections upon the Foundation dismissal of Kate Thomas (Jean Shepherd) as  a  subject  not  fit  for “further personal dialogue,” to quote Bettina Jespersen in the letter  to yourself.  That   factor  of  contempt  can  be  viewed as  supporting (however indirectly)  the Dolley veto  on my mother’s objection to the  use of  illegal  drugs (see  3.16 and 3.17 above).

The veto was expressed within the sphere of  Foundation Trusteeship, a  role  category  elevated by Jespersen in her recent letter, and in such a manner as to imply the clear superiority of  that category to Kate Thomas. This matter  alone  would  be  sufficient  reason to repudiate  the  strategy of the Foundation in relation to  my mother. 

The fact  that  Bache is a  very influential  disciple  of  Grof, and  that  my mother  first  learnt  of  Grof  therapy problems  at  the  Findhorn  Foundation in 1989-90 (due  to  the  hazardous activities of  Foundation Director Craig Gibsone), is  further cause  for due reflection.  Grof  doctrine and  therapy extends not merely to hyperventilation, but also  to  the implicit  (and explicit)  practice of LSD “therapy” and MDMA “therapy,” which both became illegal many years ago.

Wherever Stanislav Grof is in favour, there is always the question of LSD usage  and  sanction (as demonstrated by Bache), not to mention the consumption of MDMA (Ecstasy), which is regarded as mere confectionery amongst psychedelic enthusiasts. See  further my Letter of Complaint to David Lorimer and Kate Thomas, SMN Events 2000-2004.  

David Lorimer has been described as a new age impresario, and  he has  catered  strongly  for Foundation subscribers and also  Grof  supporters  in  America.  These sectors are thus interlinked in the pursuit of economic advantages.  Some  analysts  infer that  this pecuniary factor is the basic reason why  Lorimer and his close associates did not reply to my lengthy Letter of Complaint to David Lorimer (circulated  in  2006, and  to which other  parties  responded).

In conclusion, I would like to thank you warmly for the support and consideration that you have extended  to my mother.

All  Best  Wishes,

Kevin   R. D.  Shepherd

27  November  2008

Copyright © August 2009 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.