The subject is a necessary truth and is right on time. The reason the rating is low is because someone gave the movie 2 stars based on personal disagreements rather than on the film's quality. There is no way this is a 2 star movie. I think it deals with a very important subject and there are fake gurus out there, and it just shows humanity's deep need for spirituality, as well as their profound gullibility. I have written a book about shamans and it sort of deals with the same side of the story. My book is called shamans and healers, if you are interested. In short, the movie is definitely worth seeing, and is more gutsy than I would be able to pull off. Good film.

Vikram Gandhi, raised in New Jersey of Asian Indian parents, became suspicious of gurus and, in order to convince himself (and others) of their suspect credibility, he set out to show that he could fake it. And fake it he did, ultimately establishing a small group of followers in Phoenix, Arizona.

It is not clear just what Gandhi has proved by his experiment. He proved that *he* could pass himself off as an Indian guru, but he had all of the ingredients: his pretend accent (easily come by); his carefully fabricated appearance; his proficiency in yoga to the point where he could conduct classes; his emphasis on meditation; and a message that was generic enough that most anyone could find a way to respond to it, namely that each of us has an inner guru that represents our best and truest self.

I was conflicted in how I felt about what Gandhi did. The only thing that I can see where he flat lied was in his claiming to be from a small village in India. I do have a problem with Gahndi's grand plan to make this into a movie from the start, giving some credence to the opinion that it was not his followers from whom he was wanting to extract money, but rather from the ticket sales to his movie. Just how cynical Gahndi was in his approach is open to debate.

On the positive side, Gahndi would often tell his followers that he was not who they thought he was. As far as I am concerned Kumaré made a perfectly good guru. He had very sympathetic eyes and was a good listener--would that many a psychiatrist do as well as he. And it is not like Gandhi just flipped a switch to try out his experiment; he researched the field and developed a classic guru look and message. I don't see where he did much harm, and could have done good. The big failings of many gurus is their love of money and sex--recall the antics of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh for example. But, as presented, Kumaré was not eliciting sex nor was he apparently extorting money.

If Gahndi set out to make a mockery of gurus, then I don't think he achieved his goal. In fact, after revealing the truth to his followers many of them continued to regard what he had to offer as valuable.

I think that what Gahndi proved is how eager many people are to get spiritual guidance and how appreciative they are to find someone who will take them seriously and listen to them. Initially I viewed Kumaré's followers as foolishly gullible, but on further reflection I found their behaviors perfectly understandable. Compared to some of the far out eccentrics Karmaré ran into (like the sect that believed they had come from another planet), Kumaré seemed well within the bounds of believability.