What exactly happened to Don Elkins?

[Diana]

1. Don sounds like a hard headed/scientist, with major green energy problem, and we all know the "smarter" one is, the less of an open "green/love" energy.

I can't speak for Don, but I can say that the bolded above is not true. An individual can be both, even here, at the same time.

2. Carla lived by the philosophy of a "used rag". Oh...I'm sorry, she called it making decisions with "always your heart". I guess she forgot the wisdom.  
2.1 Carla let her first husband take advantage of her many, many times, infact claiming, as if that is the only way she would be lead to something great like Ra.
2.2 Moved across country at a drop of a dime for the low life scum bag.
2.3 Quit a good job because her first husband needed her to take care of him/money/work cuz he didn't have a job.
As if the UNIVERSE had NO other way to get Carla where she needed to be, but through these men treating her like a rag?

3. Don treated Carla like crap.....and she put up with it...as if that is what "love" is.

4. What if Carla would have stood up for herself, thus helping Don realize he is a &*&% and start thinking and getting in touch with his green ray.....and understanding that is NOT how you treat the most important people to you. Carla could have Helped Don in "to polarize".

5. I could be wrong, but with my limited mind/body/complex of knowing human behavior, it is very possible that Don had a twisted way of loving Carla...Now that is a nice energy you want to come home to.   And all 3 of them living in the same house. Yuk.
6. And the way the end was handles...
Go ahead, judge me as you like....I'm here to learn based on how understand the lesson.

THE LESSON IS
Don - Too much wisdom =  deadly consequences
Carla - Too much love = deadly consequences
Jim - Too much power = you got the lesson.

I see two problems with your assessment:

1. Too much focus on specific negative assumptions, when the overall view of these three lives cannot be known.

2. Making judgments based on a very limited view, when judging at all isn't even a good idea to begin with (in my opinion).

Either you get something of value from the material or you don't. Poking holes in the people who presented it won't do much good, in my opinion. I neither put these three on a pedestal nor try to debunk their efforts. To me, there is no value in that and I feel it is a waste of energy.

On the other hand, you are free to express what you will (within the guidelines here). I am not one to censor, and who knows where and how one might learn and evolve.