[CW: discussions of CSE & SA ahead]
People don't seem to understand that some lamas would essentially kidnap children, particularly boys, from peasant families to use as sex slaves. If you're a peasant family and a high lama with political connections in your region comes to take your child away to the monastery, what are you going to do about it? Challenge their authority? Call the police or CPS?
Other lamas use their position as religious leaders to sexually exploit followers and I can't tell you how many of them have serious, credible allegations against them. Moreover, there's a spiritual tradition of accomplished lamas taking "consorts" and while some people may see this as part of the religious tradition, it's hard for me to understand this as being anything beyond a situation where women essentially undergo religious indoctrination in order to be sexually exploited - if you truly believe that a lama is a spiritual emanation of an enlightened Buddha who knows the true path to enlightenment, are you really in a position to question their motives or reject their demands?

It's part of a really sad, dark history that doesn't get much light shone on it. The liberation of Tibet was a bloody affair and there was significant cultural destruction that occurred but things genuinely did not have to play out the way that they did. The CPC cops a lot of flak over it but rarely do you hear people blame the Dalai Lama and the Ganden Phodrang for choosing to rescind the 17 Point Agreement to instead throw their lot in with the west and to gamble the lives of Tibetans on the vanishingly slim chance of seceding from China and becoming a breakaway state.

Historically, Tibet would often play the regional powers of the day off against one another to jockey for position and I believe the Dalai Lama clung onto that archaic concept of being a relatively big fish in a small pond but he failed to recognize that the world in the post-WWI era was far larger than it was in prior eras, turning Tibet into a small fry comparatively speaking, so he failed to account for the fact that Tibet's position had been relegated to being one of many pawns in a grand geopolitical chessboard that powers like Britain and the US were playing, and his failure to grasp the nature of the reality he faced was to the detriment of the average people of Tibet (not that he had any concern for the average Tibetan in the first place.)

I thought it was incredibly restrained when discussing the 1959 reactionary uprising, to only mention "anti-Chinese forces". For those who might not know, it was the CIA that was supporting the Lama regime as a proxy force against the PRC. The US would have restored human slavery to Tibet just to kick sand in the face of Communist liberation.