Modern sciences that not only focus an objects, but sciences that are concerned with the subject, such as psychoanalysis, are increasingly taking over the tasks of such wise and great personalities as Kirpal Singh. Nowadays, we can no longer establish solely on direct faith, no matter how such faith was represented by a strong personality. Instead, we call for scientific access to such matters, which is free to all people. The other way around, we could argue, that a teacher of wisdom nowadays is required to also evidence his statements in accord with modern science. A teacher may no longer only provide for wise statements or successful strategies the way antique or mythical science did, but must adapt his theory or method directly to something similar to scientific evidence. There is no back stepping in this development.¹

The problem with Christian Science, of ID, of Anthroposophy, of Scientology and other similar organizations is not an issue of sectarianism, but that they relate to this kind of ancient pseudo-science. In its beginning, psychoanalysis, too, made the impression as if it were represented by a sectarian group. But soon its well-founded, scientific methodology became generally accepted. The question of sectarianism reminds me also of Capras, the 'Tao of Physics' and other esoteric fields which present fascinating analogies between physics and spirituality (mysticism). Still, the best analogy is no substitute for real scientific evidence, though you might tend to risk the experiment of relating Yoga literature and Yoga practice to modern science with the support of psychoanalysis.

1 Antique, mythical science may best be distinguished from modern science by defining their references to knowledge and to practice. These two attributes are yet closely connected to each other in antique science: he, who heals, is right (he, who is capable, also knows what is right). On the other hand, modern science separates knowledge and practice (techniques) almost completely from another and so more pecise.