A few points which need picking up / considered are:

1. The issue of Orientalism and the leftover remanants of poor journalism which were practiced pre Net days, when Western newspapers used these type of articles to fill pages. Why does these type of stories always seem to come from non European natiosn? Why is it always India, the Phillipines etc.,? Is it because there is an underlying assumption that the occult or the mystical only happens in these oriental far flung places of teh “exotic”? Or is it to play on the perpetuation of the “east” as backward and unscientific?

2. The use of science as you explained is quite good, with the exception that you may believe but have not stressed effectively enough that science is has become accepted culturally and professionally as the ultimate arbiter of facts (I will refrain from using the word truth). I do agree with you that science is another philosophy. However your defense of the internal dynamics or the internal self critique of the scientific method to grow and to adopt denudes your point of science being a philosophy. Science chooses what it wants to use as evidence and ignores other “facts”. What it wants to cast aside it calls “anomolies” which is like the defence attorney asking the jury to disregard reality.

Your use of Einstein proves the weakness of science in that it demonstrates that in order to know the truth you need to have absolute knowledge. Relativism is the most important lesson to come out of Einstein. That is becasue science can only show partial truth we can never know the whole truth.

Heisenberg's principle is a further development towards this in his discovery that based on location and time can determine the observer's perspective. Both Einstein and Heisenberg would get to this conclusion not because of their scientific methods but becasue of the phenomonological philosopher Hegel. As you correctly point out, it is this break that will separate the world from Newtonian mechanical physics and the atomic physics.

This breakthrough is phenomenal becasue of its freeing of the world of man from the world of tyrannical order as regimented by old fashioned ideas of theories of governmantality. It has taken us from Hobbes and Locke who premised their ideas on Newtonian physics to the decentered world of questions. Regardless if you are a philosopher or scientist (in the term philosopher I include all religious thinkers) the most important thing is the QUESTION not the answer derived at from limited truth/evidence.

What does this all have to do with the question at hand? My answer is that science will inevitably prove that our gent Prahalad is a “fraud”, but I put it to your readers that may have been aptly named to play a postmodern joke on us whilst serving to remind us that God is everywhere. Prahalad as you know is why Hindus celebrate Holi as a spring ritual of rebirth, a renaissance for us to always question our ideas of what we think we know. As the Buddha puts it, “you can never step in the same river twice”. Or as Professor Saravannamutto (developer of the Concorde engine) said to me once; “The question never changes but the answer always does”