In summary, K. Paul Johnson has devoted a great deal of time and effort in researching various portions of H.P. Blavatskys life and the historical identities of her Masters. Johnsons books should be read by every Theosophical and occult student who is interested in learning more about Madame Blavatskys life and the true nature of Blavatskys Mahatmas. Johnsons books are also a gold mine of biographical information on various people whom Madame Blavatsky knew. His three titles have been quite controversial in Theosophical circles but thats good if the controversy prods Theosophists to reexamine their beliefs and assumptions.
Unfortunately, Johnsons books are marred by numerous serious mistakes and inaccuracies. Furthermore, I am convinced that A. P. Sinnetts assessment of Richard Hodgsons "method" of handling the evidence about H.P.B. and the Masters also applies to Johnsons own "modus operandi" in researching the same subject:
". . .he merely staggers about among the facts, ignoring one [fact] while he is framing a hypothesis [A], incompatible with it, to explain another [fact], and then attempting to get over the first fact by suggesting alternative hypothesis [B] incompatible with the second [fact]. The multiplication of theories on this principle ad nauseam is not legitimate argument. . . ." (A.P. Sinnett, The "Occult World Phenomena" And The Society For Psychical Research, 1886, pp. 32-33.)
All in all, Johnsons "identifications" of the two Masters dont withstand a critical analysis of the sum total of evidence and testimony concerning the adepts involved. I believe that anyone who carefully studies the evidence and seriously thinks thorough the issues involved will reasonably conclude that Johnsons so-called "persuasive case" about the Masters M. and K.H. is nothing but a "house of cards." Even as "suggestions", Johnsons conjectures on these two Masters are highly implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in light of all the known facts.