A commenter who uses the name Fig had some criticism of Ruth Graham.
Her mainattack is that:
Ruth was not raped by Lama Wangdu as she claims.
She loved it at the ashram
She could have left anytime if she didn’t
She could have left her boyfriend Jesse anytime
She was a troublemaker because someone said so.
Fig had this to say about Ruth in the story 5 Ashram Members Attack Ruth on Being Jesse’s Victim:
The notion that Lama Wangdu’s granddaughters’ drugged Ruth, and she was raped by him, is completely implausible. It is highly suspect.
Ruth Grahams credibility is suspect because what she is omitting from her story is that she LOVED being at the Ashram–for years.
She was experiencing positive energy there, that she had no chance of experiencing anywhere else. Plus, she was not a prisoner there. She was free to leave at any point in time.
As far as her relationship with Jesse goes, I believe her, but at the same time she takes no responsibility for her actions in it. She was free to break up with him, at any point in time.
Yet, here she: is blaming him, blaming Sadhvi, blaming everyone but herself. It’s irresponsible, and it’s also (to some extent), revisionist history.
I personally witnessed someone in the Ashram walk up to Ruth Graham, and say to her face during a dinner clean-up crew “you, little trouble maker, you”. I saw it with my own eyes. This person said that to Ruth because there was a lot of truth to it.
Bangkok is not buying much of Fig’s yarn.
By Bangkok
Sorry, Ms. Fig, but your own analysis of Ruth’s story is woefully lacking.
Firstly, it’s COMMON SENSE that Ruth loved some ‘part’ of being at the ashram —– otherwise, she wouldn’t have remained there for 8 years. Duh. lol.
Many people who get abused (in various relationships) also ‘love’ some part of their abuser or environment — which is why they often stay for years and put up with the abuse, before finally leaving.
In Ruth’s case, several people abused her in different ways.
The Swami’s Portland compound had become her ‘home’ and ‘residence’ for many years —- and the ‘cult’ had become her whole life for many years.
Therefore, calling out these abuses would have meant immediate banishment (probably being tossed out within 24 hours) from her home and way of life at the time.
Secondly, Ruth’s allegations about Lama Wangdu contain certain omissions, which tell me that she’s not fabricating anything.
Pathological liars (like the UVA rape hoax liar) create outlandish lies intended to do ‘maximum’ harm.
Ruth’s story does NOT do maximum harm to Lama Wangdu. That’s how I know it’s likely true.
If Ruth was lying about Lama Wangdu, she wouldn’t have admitted she NEVER witnessed him raping/penetrating her (she says she only remembers being in a drugged-like state, lying naked on a bed, with him ‘smacking his lips’ grossly at her — while being told to get dressed and leave).
Wangdu living large on the donations of the gullible.
That’s a very incomplete story if her goal was to inflict maximum harm on Lama Wangdu.
If she was really lying and trying to do maximum harm —– she’d have said she vividly remembers him actually penetrating her without her consent while she was partially drugged.
But she didn’t say that, which means she’s likely telling the truth — since her own story isn’t as harmful as a lie would have been.
That’s just basic common sense.
There’s also another person (Cindy Travis) who said the Swami Chetanananda personally told her that Lama Wangdu initiated each of his own daughters & granddaughters into sex — according to Frank’s article.
Whether it’s true or not isn’t important, it’s only important that the Swami TOLD her that.
Thus, I tend to believe what Ruth is saying about Lama Wangdu.
As for your comment about someone walking up to Ruth at dinner and saying: “you little trouble maker, you” —– how the fuck does that prove she was a troublemaker or liar?
Was Ruth Graham a trouble maker at the ashram?
Many people obviously hated her at the ashram, judging from the negative comments here.
Fig, your own criticisms of the Swami are very gentle, almost deliberately so —- which tells me that you cannot admit, even to yourself, that you spent years worshiping a perverted animal.
Birds of a feather – Wangdu and Chetananda.
Have a nice day, Ms. Fig.
On a different note…
Ruth is right.
The powerful people of the ashram are now deathly afraid of the person they once believed to be meek, weak and powerless.
Ruth and her group of ex-members are the ones with the power now. They are the ones creating a support group for others leaving the ashram.
Sharon and her management team should be crapping their panties.
By the way, the IRS has something called the “Forever Statute” —- which, in essence, allows the IRS to reach back beyond the usual statute of limitations, to sue people civilly whenever FRAUD can be shown.
*Even though the Swami’s organization may be classified as a tax exempt ‘church’—- it must still pay FICA payroll taxes for all non-clergy employees, which would include FAKE UNPAID INTERNS (who are really employees in the eyes of the IRS).
If you can show a WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX — such as a fraudulent scheme by a church to evade FICA taxes by creating fake internships — then the “forever statute” allows the IRS to disregard the statute of limitations to sue people civilly.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6501
*See section (c) Exceptions, subsection (2) Willful Attempt to Evade Tax
**Normally, the IRS has a 3-year statute of limitations to assess taxes.
**For cases involving ‘large mistakes’ made on a tax return, the IRS has a 6-year statute of limitations to assess taxes.
**For cases of deliberate FRAUD (where ‘schemes’ are designed to cheat the IRS out of taxes) —- then no time limit exists for assessing taxes and suing people to recover these taxes plus huge penalties for cheating.
If what Ruth said is accurate —– then Sharon Ward deliberately paid people off the books using an internal bartering system, without reporting it to the IRS (i.e., Ruth worked full time for years in exchange for room & board and tuition; and I’m sure that other people were paid using this barter system too).
The IRS views ‘bartering’ as normal income.
Unpaid interns cannot receive full room & board in exchange for their work (if they’re ‘credited’ more than 20 percent of what a real employee would be paid to do the same work, the IRS views them as employees).
…And, during the civil investigation, if the IRS discovers that the Swami’s been doing this within the last six years (including at Gold Beach) —- they can potentially be charged with criminal tax fraud charges.
But there’s no rush.
Take your time. Get all your ducks in a row first.
Wait for enough people to join your group. Document everything meticulously.
You don’t need copies of any documents.
You only need each person’s ‘testimony’ —- about how the fraud worked and how they were forced to work in exchange for room and board or tuition, with as much detail as possible.
The power of multiple people, all testifying to the same thing, carries a lot of weight.
Then, when you’re finally ready —– have the IRS sue the shit out of Sharon and the Swami.
