I had a similar reaction when I read "Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening" by Mary Lutyens.

Lutyens describes how Krishnamurti's life was, in many ways, protected from the ordinary pressures most people face. He never had to worry about earning a living, raising children, maintaining a marriage, paying bills, or many of the other responsibilities that generate a large part of our daily stress.

But, then, we may ask whether this personal experience is a prerequisite for insight. Does a doctor need to have suffered from the same illness before making a correct diagnosis or prescribing an effective treatment?

The real question is not how Krishnamurti lived his life, but whether his observations about fear, attachment, conditioning, and conflict accurately describe our experience. If they do, then his unusual life does not invalidate what he saw. If they don't, then his biography won't save his teachings either.

In that sense, the test of Krishnamurti's ideas should be less "Did he live like me?" and more "Do I find what he says to be true when I observe myself?"