Talk:Nithyananda

There are two aspects which need to be corrected. (1) Several Indian media reported issuance of interpol "Blue Corner" and "Red Corner" notices against Swami Nithyananda.

(2) However the following article by journalist Poonam Joshi states that she directly contacted Interpol and Swami Nithyananda is NOT subject to any interpol notice, and this was supported by screenshot of the said interpol notices. Article reference: https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/nithyananda-case-interpol-denies-issuing-blue-corner-noticee-fugitive-godman-172559

OCR text of the screenshots:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Ref: LA/88732-657

The General Secretariat of the International Criminal Police Organization-INTERPOL hereby certifies that, as of today, Mr SWAMI ARUNACHALAM Sri Nithyananda (also known as ARUNACHALAM Sri Nithyananda Swami), born on 13 March 1977, is not subject to an INTERPOL Notice or diffusion.

Done in Lyon, on 26 February 2021.

Office of Legal Affairs General Secretariat INTERPOL

--- TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Ref: LA/88732-1587

The General Secretariat of the International Criminal Police Organization-INTERPOL hereby certifies that, as of today, Mr SWAMI ARUNACHALAM Sri Nithyananda, born on 13 March 1977, is not subject to an INTERPOL Notice or diffusion.

Done in Lyon, on 22 November 2022.

Office of Legal Affairs General Secretariat INTERPOL

HOWEVER, several media agencies in India (attributing the same to another news agency or Gujarat police, Officer Kamaria), for several years falsely stated that Swami Nithyananda is subject of interpol blue corner (and a few said red corner) notices.

This is proven false by Poonam Joshi's findings.

And these media sources and articles have been cited in this wikipedia article, notably: - https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/interpol-blue-corner-notice-against-self-styled-godman-nithyananda-accused-of-rape-and-abduction-on-2167968

However, this is just half truth. In the article written by journalist Poonam Joshi, the final conclusion makes it appear as if Red Corner notice was attempted etc. etc. But it must be noted, that back to back two letter from INTERPOL, which as per her own admission state that there is no interpol notice.

Actual series of event

1. 2019-12-18 Central Home Ministry sends a Letter to Karnataka Home Ministry 25014-4-2019-LC(Vol.III)

More information Extended content ...

Extended content

MOST URGENT No.25015/4/2019-LC (Vol.Ill) Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs (IS-II Division/Legal Cell) 20 Floor, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, India Gate, New Delhi-110001, the h December, 2019 To Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Karnataka, Room No. 222, 2nd Floor, Vidhana Soudha, BANGALURU- 560 001 Sub .: Applications/ representations dated 28.11.2019 of Ms. Aarthi Rao R/o Hennur, Bangalore, Karnataka and dated 04.12.2019 of Ms. Jansi Rani R/o Trichy, Tamil Nadu regarding complaint against Nithyananda. Sir/Madam, I am directed to enclose herewith two applications/ representations (i) dated 28.11.2019 of Ms. Aarthi Rao R/o Hennur, Bangalore, Kamataka and (ii) dated 04.12.2019 of Ms. Jansi Rani R/o Trichy, Tamil Nadu, on the subject mentioned above, for action as appropriate. Also enclosed is a copy of the CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs letter No. VII/406/71/2018 dated 09.12.2019, in this regard. 2. In this regard, it is informed that if an accused person is in a foreign country, then for securing his presence for trial in India, the said person needs to be extradited/ deported as per legal procedures contained in the Extradition Act, 1962 and the treaty on the issue with the concerned country 3. Further, the extradition procedure to obtain presence of the accused from the concerned country, the Investigation agency concerned needs to approach the concerned Court for issuance of an open dated Non-Bailable Warrant in the name of alleged accused and make a formal request of extradition (along with open-dated NBW) as per Ministry of External Affairs [MEA] Suggestions/ Guidelines for Extradition [copy enclosed], in quadruplet (1 Original+3 Copies) and send to this Ministry for further evaluation. If this Ministry receives any such proposal for extradition duly completed as per the MEA suggestions/ guidelines, through the State Home Department/ concerned Court or Central Investigation Agencies, it is forwarded to MEA for further necessary action, as the MEA is the nodal Ministry for Extradition. If the whereabouts of Mr. Nithyananda are not known, the concerned investigation agency may consider approaching the Central Bureau of Investigation, NCB-India, INTERPOL, New Delhi for getting 4. a Red Comner Notice issued in respect of Mr. Nithyananda. Once the present location of the accused is ascertained, the investigation agency concerned may prepare formal extradition request in respect of the accused person and send to this Ministry. . 5. Therefore, in view of the above and if the case meets the criteria, you are requested to direct the concerned investigating agency to prepare a formal extradition request and send to this Ministry through concered State Government for further action. The Self-contained affidavit should be made as per MEA suggestions/ guidelines. Encl .: As above Yours faithfully. (ANURAG KUMAR) Deputy Commadant (Legal) Contd 2 2 : Copy [along with copy of Applications/ representations of Ms. Aarthi Rao & Ms. Jansi Rani, along with enclosures] for action as appropriate to: 1. The Secretary (CPV & OIA), Ministry of External Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, Satya Marg. Chanakyapuri, New Delhi- 110 021. 2 The Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3 The Additional Director General of Police, Bangalore City, Karnataka Copy for information to: 1. Dr. Adarsh Swaika, Joint Secretary (CPV), CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. Ms. Aarthi Rao, PH-A, Grace Garden Apts., Hennur Main Road, Hennur, Bangalore - 560 043 3. Smt. Jansi Rani, Mela Theru, Navalur Kutta- Pattu, Tirchy, Tamil Nadu.

Close

2. 2020-09-21 Interpol (letter reference IP-2_230_2019) to CCF rejects requests for any information about Swami Nithyananda, citing it is in violation of UDHR Article 2 and Interpol's obligation. Not only that Interpol DELETES all information about Swami Nithyananda from their record.

More information Extended content ...

Extended content

NEW DELHI [Handwritten Note Top Right:]** [Signature] 01/03/2021 D2 From:** CCF gs.igcs.int Sent:** 26 February 2021 16:36 To:** NCB NEW-DELHI India Subject:** CCF - Decision of the Commission - Mr Sri Nithyananda Swami ARUNACHALAM (IPSG file no. 2019/126802) Follow Up Flag:** Follow up Flag Status:** Completed [Stamped Box:]** IPCU Dy. No. 392...... 01 MAR 2021 From:** Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files To:** NCB New Delhi Our ref:** CCF/116/R215.20 Your Ref:** IP-2/230/2019 dated 2020-09-21 Dear NCB, As indicated in our message dated 12 November 2020, we would like to inform you that the file concerning Mr Sri Nithyananda Swami ARUNACHALAM was studied by the Commission. [Text within the yellow highlighted box]** The Commission established that the retention of the data concerning the Applicant was not compatible with INTERPOL's obligation to ensure effective cooperation between police authorities within ""the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"" (Article 2 of INTERPOL's Constitution). As a result, it decided that the data shall be deleted. Accordingly, the INTERPOL General Secretariat deleted these data. As provided for by Article 35.1 of the Statute of the Commission (CCF Statute), ""information connected to a request shall be accessible to the applicant and the source of the data, subject to restrictions, conditions and procedures set out in this article"". As a result, the communication of information may be restricted for one of the motives laid down in Article 35.3 of the CCF Statute and must be justified as per Article 35.4 of the said Statute. In the present case, the Commission had to deal with restricted information. Therefore, it applied the following procedure and reasoning. First, the Commission established the existence of restricted information connected to the request. Therefore, it considered whether the restriction was motivated and appropriately justified, as required by Articles 35.3 and 35.4 of the CCF Statute. Then, the Commission observed that the restricted information connected to the request was aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of the Applicant, in the meaning of Article 35.3(c) of the CCF Statute. It further examined the justification applicable to this restricted information, in light of Article 35.4 of the CCF Statute. In doing so, it weighed the requirements of equality of rights before the law, against the necessity to uphold a party's fundamental rights. In this context, it established that the restricted information is considered as confidential information under international law and recalled that the Commission is bound to uphold the Organization's international obligations in this regard. As a result, the Commission held that it was provided with sufficient reasonable and proportionate elements to justify the preservation of the confidentiality of the information concerned. Therefore, there is unfortunately no additional information that we can provide to your NCB concerning this case. Thank you for your cooperation. Cordialement / Kind regards / Atentamente / التحية مع Secretariat to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files

Close

3. 2021-03-15 CBI send a letter to DGP Gujarat informing about rejection from Interpol

More information Extended content ...

Extended content

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION NATIONAL CENTRAL BUREAU-INDIA INTERPOL-NEW DELHI 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Tel: 011-24361921, Fax: 011-24364070 E-mail: adipol cbi.gov.in Subject: Concerning publication of Red Notice against subject Sri Nithyananda Swamy ARUNNACHALAM - reg.** Please find enclosed a copy of message dated 26.02.2021 received from CCF on the subject cited above vide which it is informed that data concerning the applicant is not compatible with INTERPOL's obligation to ensure effective cooperation between police authorities within ""the spirit of the Universal Declaration of 'Human' Rights"" (Article 2 of INTERPOL's Constitution). As a result, it is decided that the data shall be deleted. Accordingly, the INTERPOL General Secretariat deleted these data. It is further informed that though the decision of CCF is binding, an application for the revision can be made based on discovery of facts which could have led to a different conclusion if that fact had been known at the time at which the request was being processed. Application for review must be made within six months after the discovery of the fact. In this regard, it is advised to consider sending detailed representation or further request if there is a new case or substantially important development/new information in the present cases. Encl: As above (Signature) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/NCB 1. The Inspector General of Police, (Crime-I) & Interpol Liaison Officer, CID Crime and Railways, 4th Floor, Police Bhavan, Sector-18, Gandhinagar, Gujarat- 382007. 2. The Addl. Director General of Police, CID & Interpol Liaison Officer, Carlton House, Palace Road, Bangaluru, Karnataka-56001. Our File No.: IP-2/230/2019/326 Dated: 11.03.2021 Copy to: 1. Director General of Police, Gujarat, First floor, Police Bhavan, Sector 18, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382018 - for information. 2. Director General of Police, Karnataka, No. 2, Police Headquarters Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore- 1, Karnataka- for information.

Close

4. 2021-02-26 Interpol LA 88732-657 Swami Nithyananda not subject of notice

5. 2022-11-22 Interpol LA 88732-1587 Swami Nithyananda not subject of notice

6. 2023-01-28 Poonam Joshi publishes half lies half truth telling truthfully (with correct reference numbers) that interpol on 2021-02-26 (LA 88732-657) and on 2022-11-22 (LA 88732-1587) clarified there is no interpol notice on Swami Nithyananda, BUT did NOT tell the correct reason and add her biased narratives along with other companion co-authors of the article. Here is the precise link of the image https://media.assettype.com/tnm%2Fimport%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FInterpol_Nityananda_280123_650%2520(1).jpg?w=1024&auto=format%2Ccompress and again I am repasting the article link - https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/nithyananda-case-interpol-denies-issuing-blue-corner-noticee-fugitive-godman-172559

Poonam Joshi has severely verbally abused Swami Nithyananda's devotees from London namely Ma Nithya Atmadayananda and severely campaigned against an event organized by her. Poonam Joshi finally picked up a fight with a British politician Rami Ranger, for which she had to apologize (and also the politician). Why should Poonam Joshi's article appear in the first paragraph of this wikipedia article when it is clear she is clear antagonist to Swami Nithyananda, and so is clearly visible from her twitter profile: https://x.com/PoonamJoshi_/status/1907768783055303034 https://x.com/PoonamJoshi_/status/1729678305144476126 https://x.com/PoonamJoshi_/status/1658810626150375425

This is the Poonam Joshi's article which is cited has been used for months dehumanize all devotees, disciples of Swami Nithyananda calling all as "cult": - Sawer, Patrick; Joshi, Poonam (11 December 2022). "Work of cult leader wanted by Indian police promoted in Houses of Parliament Diwali pamphlet". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 12 December 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/11/work-cult-leader-wanted-indian-police-promoted-houses-parliament/

This article was added quiet recently, around this year, with the single purpose of characterizing of the entire community as "cult" later the characterization was changed to "controversial".

What action will Wikipedia administrators and senior editors take on this?

I am tagging a few admins that have been active on this topic @Drmies, @Pigsonthewing, @MrOllie I am also tagging @Cyberpower678 an admin whose mentions about himself in his profile that he is reasonable with the hope that my request of stopping name calling of our community as "Cult" can be stopped in wikipedia, it i dehumanizing, cruel, and violates our right to dignity (which is part of right to life - a fundamental human right). I find it hurtful that some wikipedia editors have actively blocked edit requests on technical grounds justifying calling of our community as cult. It really hurts to know which is my I have also tagged Cyberpower678, who unrelated to this topic might understand our pains. I wish to add for months I have personally been in severely distressed to see how casually Wikipedia editors take this wikipedia article and play with our lives as if we are toys in their hands that they destroy our lives.

129.222.149.213 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

• What I think should be changed: The sentence should be removed: "He has been described by several media outlets, including The Daily Telegraph, as a controversial figure. "
• Why it should be changed: One journalist named Poonam Joshi who has been falsely and prejudicially reporting about Swami Nithyananda and attacking his community has been cited as an authoritative voice of (i) Daily Telegraph (ii) entire (note the usage of the world "several media" media world wide (iii) and also appears as if voice of wikipedia. This is quite a stretch of faulty generalization. Poonam Joshi is calling the entire community of devotees cult in her tweets, in her articles, this is dehumanizing and racist supremacist attitude being crowned as authoritative final word on our community undermining our right to dignity (which is part of right to life as per all international standards). This is cherry picking and finding some of the worst articles to delegitimize the subject (Swami Nithyananda) and His community. Compare it with the fact that during the final order (in the written order) in case number R/SCR.A/9973/2019 the judge while exonerated Swami Nithyananda and our community of all false charges of abduction and kidnapping in its final order for explicitly mentioned in paragraph 22 that our community is on a `spiritual path`. At attribution is not used, it is suppressed in this wikipedia page, and a fully biased journalist is used to show 'several' media labels us a cult/controversial. This characterization denies us the fundamental right to be presumed innocent again a human right. Such labeling causes us jeopardy, discrimination and face social stigma in real life which might be protected by laws of 99.9999% countries and also many rules of Wikipedia but still our community is being stigmatized and discriminated against in Wikipedia. It must be stopped. Also the CBC also apologized for their characterization. We have a high court judge who after 4+ years of proceeding finally concluded we are on a spiritual path, and CBC also apologized. But why despite several edit requests it is insisted that calling our community, Swami Nithyananda (and followers of Swami Nithyananda) as controversial or cult is justified. I feel this is a very reasonable request. I request if editors find neutral journalist and I request not to deep research to somehow cherry pick and find the most biased journalist with vested interests and conflict of interest with the subject (Swami Nithyananda), and who is prejudice against our community, verbally abuses us (one of our community members Ma Atmadaya from London) on our face physically, and actively campaigns to the extent of having to apologize for her behavior (which shows her activism is not done with a neutral mind, but with deep agitation and without application of mind). This I believe clearly illustrates there is **Conflict of Interest**. Refer : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65890443 ( Ms Joshi, a freelance Indian journalist based in the UK, has issued a written apology to the peer, in which she accepts "a share of the responsibility for the circumstances which have arisen".)
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): (1) Details links mentioned above: Talk:Nithyananda#Articles_of_journalists_(Poonam_Joshi)_with_direct_Conflict_of_interest_have_been_cited_should_be_removed_and_information_regarding_interpol_should_be_properly_contextualized ; (2) Gujarat order link https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71852357/ ; (3) CBC apology - https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-46-on-the-coast/clip/16091186-correction-story-july-13-2023 (4) Gujarat Judge's written order and verbal remark reference (behind paywall) https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/spiritual-roads-are-always-lengthy-gujarat-high-court-dismisses-plea-after-4-years-filed-by-a-man-against-self-styled-godman-swami-nithyananda-for-confining-daughters-248359 , the article clearly mentions, "While concluding the hearing, Justice Kogje remarked, 'Spiritual Roads are always lengthy.'" Between Judge Kogje versus journalist Poonam Joshi overemphasis is given to Poonam Joshi (literally the second reference in this page), how is this fair? Also see, another quote from the article "Satisfied with the situation, Justice Kogje stated, “Though the learned advocate for the petitioner has sought to raise objections about the place from where the corpora have appeared online before this Court. However, having interviewed both the corpora, the Court is satisfied that both are adults, mature enough to understand their well being and apparently are happy at the place where they are presently residing and on their spiritual path.”" 129.222.149.103 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Likeanechointheforest; Could you please clarify and help me understand what makes Poonam Joshi's Telegraph article a reliable source that it is included in the first paragraph of this page. And what makes Judge Kogje's observation made after 4+ years of trial, and published in livelaw.in (web archive doesn't have paywall - http://web.archive.org/web/20240202180844/https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/spiritual-roads-are-always-lengthy-gujarat-high-court-dismisses-plea-after-4-years-filed-by-a-man-against-self-styled-godman-swami-nithyananda-for-confining-daughters-248359 ) and was also part of the final order para 22 (available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71852357/ ) not considered for inclusion in this page? Is it a technical problem in presentation of facts/evidences or inability to terse explain by our community? Also Poonam Joshi is not neutral, and has conflict of interest, is clear by the very fact that she had a heated argument Refer : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65890443, it states "Ms Joshi, a freelance Indian journalist based in the UK, has issued a written apology to the peer, in which she accepts 'a share of the responsibility for the circumstances which have arisen'." Also regarding links related to the INTERPOL, this is all we have Here is the precise link of the image https://media.assettype.com/tnm%2Fimport%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FInterpol_Nityananda_280123_650%2520(1).jpg?w=1024&auto=format%2Ccompress ; which is unfortunately obtained by Poonam Joshi https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/nithyananda-case-interpol-denies-issuing-blue-corner-noticee-fugitive-godman-172559 but reported with partial truth, and lack of actual context. So please consider our request leaving aside INTERPOL if that the actual problematic item. 129.222.149.75 (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll let another editor weigh in Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Likeanechointheforest, I appreciate your neutral stand. At the same time I request you and other neutral editors to consider monitoring this wikipedia page/talk-page, to prevent future vandalism and dehumanizing/discriminatory attributions (such as calling us cult/controversial etc.) which causes us a lot of distress and also harms us in our day to day life. 129.222.149.114 (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The only mention of "cult" on the article is in this segment A number of mainstream news outlets and a TV documentary series on Disney+ have referred to the organisation as a "cult" and his micronation of Kailaasa as unrecognised entity; although some later retracted similar characterizations and apologized and his organization has denied any wrongdoing., with 14 citations. While not all of those 14 citations appear relevant to the claim of calling it a cult, DNAIndia states Several people also refer to [Nithyananda] as a cult leader., Fox repeatedly calls it a cult without attribution, Deccan Chronicle says 'cult' multiple times when presenting comments by a former member, and Deccan Herald does not directly call it a cult but does assert that Nithyananda engaged in criminal and disingenuous activity. Taken altogether, while referencing could be improved and minor adjustments made, overall this seems like an adequate and balanced presentation of the sources. I'll note as well that the BBC source that the IP provided reports on mutual apologies between Rami Ranger, Baron Ranger and Joshi, seemingly based mostly on social media engagements between the two, but does not assert that there were any errors in Joshi's reporting on Nithyananda itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion to completely remove the following line: >> The French government also has been seeking Nithyananda's whereabouts since 2019, to answer for fraud charges brought by a former devotee in France who claimed he was cheated by the guru out of an amount around US$400,000.

This news is reported in just 1 line of the article and in only 1 newspaper. It is 7 years old. It only talks about "launching an investigation" - which surely does not translate to "seeking Nithyananda's whereabouts" as wrongly mentioned by the editor or even that a crime indeed was confirmed for that matter.

Funnily it also says "The French authorities have launched Nithyananda" - whatever that means. But that sort of brings down the reputability of the entire article which is focused on other matters except for this line.

An alleged investigation that has gone for 7 years without any further follow up and reported in only one newspaper is not encyclopedia material and does not align with the guidelines of BLP:CRIME and should be removed in my opinion ~2026-13309-45 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Tagging editors from earlier threads since the article is blocked for editing by regular editors @Likeanechointheforest @Drmies, @Pigsonthewing, @MrOllie ~2026-13441-32 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

We're not going to remove sourced information because it should be removed in your opinion - preventing that sort of thing is why the article is protected in the first place. You can stop tagging me in threads like this, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The cited source says Nithyananda's whereabouts are a mystery since the police launched a search for him., which very much does translate to "seeking Nithyananda's whereabouts". Nice try. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? Please read the article. It talks about the Ahmedabad case when it says the police are seeking his whereabouts. Not the French - as has been misinterpreted by the editor. ~2026-13580-09 (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiments expressed by MrOllie and Andy Mabbett here, but I did see that the source includes information about two separate things, the French fraud investigation and the Gujarat police investigation. I corrected the article statement to be more factual but kept the source in. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. But you should please also consider the larger problem here. Depending on such weak sources and maligning the reputation of someone by editorial oversight is not a good thing. It doesn't even seem to bother many of the editors that such a mistake existed on the page for years. You must ask the question if this line is even worth reporting!

As you certainly know, news-media always projects a negative view of a subject. When something seems wrong there are a lot of news articles but they never highlight what is good about the subject or even followup when the allegations are dropped. We should understand the contributions are the only reason the maligning makes it to "news" in the first place. By relying this entire article on news articles - many of them 10 to 15 years old, the article is by itself biased negatively.

All the positive content have been removed by various editors over the years citing they are self-published (or by fiat declared as having conflict of interest). Many newspapers over he course of the two decades have retracted or apologized for their portrayals. Yet these don't feature prominently on the page.

The prominent use of unproven allegations such as "rape" and pejorative terms such as "cult leader" right at the introduction is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I sincerely request you, Likeanechointheforest (talk) to look into the bias against the subject in the article and if you can bring balance to the article.

For starters make the introduction less abusive and perhaps not make the controversy sections the bulk of the article and balance it with the contributions made by the subject. Maybe we need a new set of editors who are not so antagonistic to the subject to take over the page. Thanks. ~2026-13849-86 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Unless you provide sources yourself, there's really no basis for anyone to make any changes here. You should also clarify whether you have any connection to Nithyananda and/or his institutions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)