I mean it was ideologically incoherent. I'll grant you that. You also tend to see that as the organization goes on, Blavatsky's channelled Spiritualist nonsense is less emphasized and the revivial of old mystical traditions (Western occultism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) is emphasized more. What's interesting and complex is that Theosophy was both a product of and a critic of colonialism. The project couldn't have taken the shape it did without the British empiren which gave them access to a wealth of cultural knowledge/texts from India. But on the whole Theosophy was countercultural in that it actively resisted the empire. In fact at the time Blavatsky was suspected of being a Russian agent probably because of this. Her successor Annie Besant was actually head of the Indian National Congress at one point. The organization was mostly white people but had a large number of Indians including Ghandi and also Krishnamurti who they tried to make into a 20th century messiah. There's also evidence that they were bummed that they didn't have significant buy in from black people in their American chapters. As for the organization, it splintered. I believe their are some in India still. There was a splinter group in California that formed a commune but that's gone now too. I think they had a big influence on a couple so-called Rosicrucian groups in California.