The President of the Theosophical Society announced publicly, on Sunday last, the name of the Society’s new Mahatma or Occult Director, which it had been the intention of the Society to conceal for one year from all persons except the fourteen members of the Inner Circle. The premature disclosure was due, it appears, to the “Great Unknown’s” indiscreet admission to her “hired girl” that she was indeed the extraordinary personage in question. President HARGROVE says that “the real leader of the Theosophical movement throughout the world
and the heir to the occult succession of those preceding her” is Mrs. KATHERINE A. TINGLEY of this city. We learn from the published biographies of this associate of Koot Hoomi
and Morya that she was born in Newburyport, Mass., forty years ago; that she has studied Spiritualism, Theosophy, and the like for ‘‘thirty-five years’’; that her first husband was one GEORGE W. PARENT, a barkeeper and afterward a detective, who died nine years ago; and that her second husband is a clerk employed by the Red Star Steamship Company. When we read of the mediumistic “circles” which at one time she conducted in this city under the guardianship of a ‘‘venerable East Indian," (possibly the aged Koot of Himalaya Four
Corners,) we are reminded of the fact that the Theosophical Society was really born in Vermont farmhouse when Mme. BLAVATSKY and Col. OLCOTT were studying there the “materializations”’ of the Eddy family. But is it true that Mrs. TINGLEY is the Society’s new Occult Guardian, and that the mantle of Mme. BLAVATSKY and WILLIAM Q. Judge did not really fall upon JOHN E. W. KEELY, the Philadelphia motor man? We have the word of all the Society’s officers and esoteric Medicine-men that they were solemnly enjoined by the late Mr. JUDGE, in his posthumous messages, to keep the name a secret for at least one year. Are they now striving to protect KEELY by pointing to Mrs. TINGLEY?
Until Sunday last, the officers of the Society and members of the Inner Circle had uniformly asserted that the new Occult Director was a man. The existence of this Director was first announced to the public on April 3 in a statement approved by Vice President FUSSELL. We
quote from it as follows:
“In a paper containing Mr. JUDGE’S message to his associates stated that the society would have in its ranks a high adept, one who all these years had purposely kept himself in the background. So well had he masked himself that he would prove all unknown save to the initiated few. The paper further revealed that the new leader was in some ways greater than either Mme. BLAVATSKY, or W. Q. JUDGE himself, and that Mr. JUDGE—adept though he was often went to him for guidance. The name of the adept was given. Already he is practically in control of the society. To the favored few in possession of his name he communicates his wishes, and they in turn ‘transmit them to other members. He has already asserted himself. He has requested that the annual convention shall be held in New-York instead of Chicago.’’
And now we are told that the subject of these remarks was Mrs. TINGLEY!
On the 18th ult. there was given out to the press at the office of the Society in Madison Avenue a long and authoritative statement concerning the discovery of the new Director and the work to be done at the approaching convention. From this statement, which was published on the 19th ult., we take the following:
“The occult [section of the society] is a secret body of adepts, possessing psychic powers, and is under the direct guidance of the great beings Known as Mahatmas, who reside in Thibet. The chief of the occult section is appointed by the Mahatmas, and is an adept on whom the mantle of leadership naturally falls by reason of his development. When Mr. JUDGE died, it looked as if there was none to succeed him. Among the qualifications necessary for such leadership are the power to leave the body at will and transport one’s self to any distant place and the power to communicate with disciples and the Mahatmas by thought transference.
“A complete surprise was in store. A document was found which stated, over the departed chief’s signature, that there was in the society a real adept, who had veiled himself in such obscurity that his very existence was known to scarcely half a dozen members. Mr. JUDGE named him as his successor. But the paper contained an injunction that his name and identity must be kept a secret for a specified time, said to be one year. Mr. JUDDGE’s indorsement secured a prompt acceptance of the new leader, although he will remain unknown for months.’’
But now we are told that those who prepared this statement knew at the time that the concealed leader was a woman! Secretary CLAUDE FALLS WRIGHT said, in answer to a question about the new Director: “He is a foreigner.’’ At the same time he gave the following information:
“If he were known, the tremendous thought-waves that would come at him from all over the world would, in his sensitive condition, kill him. On the other hand, if knowledge of his tdentity is deferred for a while, there will be less curiosity, and the the thought-waves will have become settled. I know him to be of great power, and attainments. He can tell the character of every person in the society, although they are all unknown to him, and he can tell whether any one is for or against him as a leader.’’
Was Mr. WRIGHT talking about Mrs. TINGLEY? Did he have in mind the woman of whom President HARGROVE now says:
“She is a woman of indomitable courage, of utter fearlessness; and, once believing that a thing is right, she would not budge an inch if the whole country was howling at her heels resources, brain.”
Is this a picture of the sensitive, obscure, timid, and retiring adept whose name must be concealed because, if it were known, the thought-waves would kill him ?
There is a screw loose somewhere in this Theosophic transaction. If Mr. JUDGE directed, as the leaders of the Society have said, that his mantle should be placed upon the shoulders of a man, whom he named, why has it been given to a woman? If in fact he named a woman, why did the leaders of the Society uniformly assert, until last Sunday, that a man had been selected? What has become of the Society’s lofty ethical principles? Has KEELY, the patient inventor, been crowded out of his rightful place by intrigue? We commend the situation to the attention of the scoffing and rebellious branch in Chicago.
Published: May 19, 1896
Copyright © The New York Times