I have a number of their pictures that my Roman Catholic family bought at a Roman Catholic bookstore in ignorance of their origin (they don’t advertise their origins in their catalog, and they look enough like icons to delude Roman Catholics).
I had each one of them blessed by a priest even before I knew what was wrong with them, and then blessed again when everything in my room was blessed. Both priests that blessed them are very holy and I trust that their blessing was sufficient; both of them would probably regard an exorcism as somewhat paranoid. I am personally a bit suspicious of the idea that pictures bought in good intentions, and in themselves orthodox in regards to what they depict (regardless of the liberties taken with the iconographic canons, which you will see in pretty much any “icon” written by a Roman Catholic), are demonically infested because the monks that wrote them were New Age screwballs. I would also urge a bit more sober and objective view of what exactly their rituals are; if they are Hindu in origin (as the article indicated) it is inaccurate to refer to them as “pagan”. Hindu religion is a lot different from “pagan” polytheism and cannot be treated the same way. Finally, I without at least another source confirming it I would take everything the article said with a grain of salt. It was written in a very polemic spirit, and after extensive study of Oriental religious movements I’ve become extremely disenchanted with the conservative Orthodox and Catholic reactions against them for their extremely simplistic misrepresentations of everything they criticize and their paranoid reaction against something that ought to be judged objectively. Just because something is of Hindu origin doesn’t make it automatically wrong or bad, just as the fact that something has its origin in Greek philosophy does not make it wrong and bad. They are both the spoliae Aegyptorum.