Yes, it seems that both Steve Runfeldt and Doug Marman
inspired David Lane to do more research and postings on
I was reading various speculations of Marman's where he
couldn't connect the dots and didn't see why Paul would lie
about his age (1912 birthdate) to Camille PT's first wife.
Well, PT probably did this because he hadn't completed
high school when he was supposed to. PT had to go back
to HS at 23 years of age in order to attend college, and
Camille knew when he graduated high school. Therefore,
PT lied to make himself appear 4 years younger!
Gail thought Twit was born in 1922, and was 19 years older
than her. Anyway, this is why there are so many contradictions
in the ECKANKAR teachings of Twitchell. Lies are always difficult
to keep straight and remember.
BTW-Klemp even mentions (ECKANKAR.org) something about
Paul not graduating high school until his twenties and states
that this was not all that uncommon in those days. However,
this is also why PT lied about his age to Camille. ECKANKAR
gives PT's birthdate as Oct. 22, 1908. The 1908 date is listed
on the copyright page of the leather bound Shariyat Books 1&2.
Check out this PT info-
> I believe this is part of a series of discussions that
> took place between David Lane and eckist Steve (R).
> Doesn't seem like Steve can keep the facts straight in
> his feeble attempts to discredit the facts about Paul
> Twitchell and Eckankar that David Lane discovered in
> his research. It seems that Steve continued to "inspire"
> Lane for some time! I thought it would be fun to
> add Lane's comments to our site's archives, and perhaps
> inspire some critical thinking eckists to take a closer
> look at what they have bought into!
> Here's Lane's comments:
> 1922 and More Inspiration from Steve
> Author: David Christopher Lane
> Publisher: MSAC Philosophy Group
> Publication date: 1996
> I want to go back to the home base now.
> Dear Steve:
> Just read your latest offering with much anticipation and joy. Why?
> Because every time you write something I know I am going to get
> inspired and will end up writing a response. Again, I thank you for
> at least prompting me to once again post something on the
> alt.religion.eckankar newsgroup.
> 1. You have your information about Paul's lying about his birthdate
> a bit backwards. Twitchell not only lied to Gail about his birthdate
> (she is the informant, by the way, on Twitchell's death certificate),
> but to a whole slew of people, including Jack Jarvis of the Seattle
> Post Intelligencer who stated in print that Paul said that he had
> just "turned forty" (the article was written in 1963/64). Just look
> at Twitchell's story about going to India with his sister, Kay-Dee
> (which is, by the way, fictional) wherein he also lies about his
> If you don't trust marriage certificates, death certificates, or old
> family bibles, then look at what Twitchell said to the Registrar at
> Western Kentucky (he said he was 22 when he enrolled in 1933). Yet,
> some thirty years later (when Twitchell now has a young wife--barely
> 21?) he changes his age by at least a decade. To whom, you may ask?
> Brad Steiger, Gail, his employers, his disciples, and any reporter
> naive enough to accept Twitchell's reconstruction of facts.
> 2. I don't see anything "honest" about Twitchell saying he was born
> out of wedlock. His brother-in-law, Paul Iverlet, said the whole
> story was a fabrication and if his family knew Paul would have
> gotten an earful. Of course, you don't have to believe Paul Iverlet,
> who was married for years to Kay-Dee. Much better to believe Paul
> Twitchell who has never lied, never covered-up, and never plagiarized
> (I am teasing, lest you don't get the joke).
> 3. Either you have an atrocious memory (in which case I don't blame
> you) or you willfully like to misrepresent facts, even after you
> have been corrected several times. You state that "my findings"
> have never been substantiated by the academic community. Here we
> go again:
> 1. Almost every encyclopedia of religion or cults edited by J.
> Gordon Melton (from the Encyclopedia of American Religions to
> the Encyclopedia of Cults) has cited my findings on Twitchell's
> plagiarism and spiritual background.
> 2. Almost every academic article on Eckankar (from Juergensmeyer's
> brief sections in his books to Robert S. Ellwood's at USC to Timothy
> Miller's latest edited volume for SUNY Press) has cited and "agreed"
> with the substance of my findings.
> 3. I have presented my research to a series of academics: ranging
> from The AAR Stanford University Meeting in 1982 to an invited talk
> at the London School of Economics (where there was a conference on
> new religions in Europe).
> 4. I can list over 25 different publications--not connected with me
> in any way--which have cited and substantiated the findings of a
> making of a spiritual movement.
> Don't get me wrong, I like your skepticism of my work. It is good to
> rip and shred and lacerate. But you would be much better off and be
> accurate in your rips. Don't misrepresent things, especially after I
> have written to you a couple of times on this very issue.
> Okay, let's say you think whatever I do is tainted (fair enough).
> Then I would suggest you do what other academics have done (like
> Melton who checked it for himself, and please keep in mind that he
> is not at all anti-cult--quite the opposite).
> Read the review of my work in GNOSIS, read the review of my work in
> SUNY's latest book on cults, read the original findings of that
> academic on Dave Rife's homepage.
> Better yet read your own master on the subject: Harold Klemp. He
> read the Making of a Spiritual Movement and even used some facts
> from it, even though he did not cite it.
> Don't believe me, Steve? Go ask him. Better yet still, go ask Darwin
> who wanted me to be his "expert" witness at his trial.
> What you should do is go find the original ORION magazines (I am in
> London right now, but will in the near future put them on the web)
> and see how Twitchell changed names, etc.
> There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of ex-Eckists (and
> even now practicing Eckists) who have researched this issue about Paul
> and have come to grips with it. Not by making shit up, not by lame
> excuses, but by simply acknowledging his past, his plagiarism, his
> lying, and his cover-up.
> You don't want to do that. Fair enough, but better to be accurate
> about what I have discovered and what others have discovered. To
> keep saying the same mispresentations over and over again will only
> insure the one thing I don't think you want:
> Lane writing yet another rebuttal.
> But then again you do me the favor, so maybe I should say keep
> misconstruing my work and my background. That way I will at least
> write something.
> thanks again for the inspiration,
> dave lane