By Bume's definition a "science" can be legitimized simply if some "academician" studies or practices it, thus excusing any others who believe, practice or leverage it to the disadvantage of others as well. As to Western vs Eastern "science", all one has to do is ask which one got the Russians into space, got them nuclear power or television sets. GeoScammers has no "scientists" of any cardinal disposition, including northern or southern, they are just a bunch of confidence operators leveraging the nonsensical byproduct of alleged scientific minds suffering from an unfortunate combination of too little sanity and too much subsidy.
This is sidetracking pretty badly... but obviously pretty much all definitions are problematic. If we consider for example the alleged 14000 state-sponsored scientists working with kirlian photography in Romania in the 70s, at least most of them likely had scientific background, academic titles, they were being paid to do "science" or "research", they created some "scientific" papers about it and so on. How can you define them something else than scientists doing science (in the context of the time and place) except by a very subjective definition or one that basically defines that if a scientist turns out to be wrong later, he wasn't actually doing science?
As for how it could be possible that a large group of some sort of "scientists" would still be working on and believing to something that doesn't really make much sense for most of us and the scientific community in general, I don't see that as so hard to believe. Obviously people believe stupid things even in large groups, and are generally unwilling to change any opinions and views they have held for long. And "scientists" are people like the rest of us. Also there might have been many in that group who have actually changed their mind and left it behind, or decided to just shut up and continue to collect the paychecks. If there were that kind of numbers believing to things like that in the 70s, it's no wonder if there's enough of them stuck on those days still.
It also seems this is one of those cases where the science is so bad that it's not even wrong, as the saying goes. There's for example that magical kirlian moment where a blob is created and somehow interpreted to show auras or souls or planes in this instance. There's not much theory to explain how a picture can show one of those things, especially as the very existence of most of them is more than questionable. So how do you actually prove them wrong? You can of course say that it doesn't make any sense but it's not the same as actually being able to prove it wrong, like you can do with some erroneous calculation or a violation of the laws of physics. Consequently it's much easier for believers to keep their faith as it can't be properly disproved, and they can say and actually believe that the opponent just doesn't understand it, or there's some alternate physics involved or whatever.
In this case it's possible that those guys at Sevastopol haven't even been properly challenged, especially if their work was classified before, and now they are working behind the facade of these marketing firms. After all, most scientists who could really challenge that tech do not know there's kirlian and stuff involved. Heck, they don't even know all this originates from Sevastopol.
I see this being a very similar situation to that global consciousness nonsense in Princeton to which I have made a lot of comparisons. It's also so bad that it's not even wrong. There's no sensible theory to get from random numbers to some magical global consciousness. And as a result, nobody has been able to prove them wrong or make them to lose their faith after all these years. And those believers include people with credentials like "a former dean of Princeton's engineering school and an emeritus professor". So are those people scientists doing science (as they still do the same stuff)? And if such people in the west believe to such junk, why is it so hard to believe some group in Ukraine would believe to something that's similarly questionable?