First published in the United Kingdom on 26 October 1987, the book takes a critical perspective, challenging the Church of Scientology's account of Hubbard's life and work.

He decided at this point to use his research as the basis of a full-fledged biography of Hubbard, in addition to writing the previously agreed series of articles for the Sunday Times.

[10] He wrote in his "author's note" at the start of the book: [T]he Church did its best to dissuade people who knew Hubbard from speaking to me and constantly threatened litigation.

Scientology lawyers in New York and Los Angeles made it clear in frequent letters that they expected me to libel and defame L. Ron Hubbard.

When I protested that in thirty years as a journalist and writer I had never been accused of libel, I was apparently investigated and a letter was written to my publishers in New York alleging that my claim was 'simply not accurate'.

"[3] Senior executives at publishers Michael Joseph and at the Sunday Times, which serialised the book, received threatening phone calls and a visit from private investigator Eugene Ingram, who worked for the Church.

"[19] In 1990, nearly three years after the book's first publication, a defector from the Church of Scientology provided the Sunday Times with internal documents detailing the smear campaign against Miller.

According to the informant, the investigators used contacts with the British police to try to implicate him in unsolved crimes: "People were brought in from abroad posing as journalists to arrange interviews with Scotland Yard where they would drop innuendoes about Miller.

"[3] The Church of Scientology and related entities sought injunctions against the book's publication, claiming copyright infringement of Hubbard's private documents.

[6][20] They threatened to sue in as many as 50 countries,[1] adopting a strategy that the University of Pennsylvania's Professor Paul K. Saint-Amour has described as "an international parade of litigation" and "whack-a-mole legal proceedings".

The unpublished materials were held to be "essential" if Hubbard's early career was to be "properly evaluated", and legal decisions against Armstrong in California could not bind an English court.

The decision by Lord Justice Fox argued that Hubbard's "cosmic significance" in Scientology – a group which itself had been the subject of a Government report in 1972 – implied a strong public interest in the book's content.

Henry Holt's president, Bruno Quinson, declared his company's intention to fight the suit: "This is a case, to say the least, that has serious First Amendment considerations and we are vigorously opposing the Scientologists' efforts to prevent the publication of this book.

"[29] The district court that first heard the case ruled that, although the quotation of private correspondence breached copyright law, an injunction would deny the publisher's First Amendment rights.

His decision was seen as a repudiation of the higher court's Salinger precedent: "The grant of an injunction would ... suppress an interesting, well researched, provocative study of a figure who, claiming both scientific and religious credentials, has wielded enormous influence over millions of people.

The denial produced an unusual split between the judges; four who supported a rehearing stated that they believed that "copying some small amounts of unpublished expression to report facts accurately and fairly" was covered by fair use, while five who opposed it rejected that proposition, declaring that "under ordinary circumstances" the use of "more than minimal amounts of unpublished expressive material" should attract an automatic injunction.

[11] The American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called the decision "a great sadness", arguing that had it been made earlier, he could not have published all three volumes of his history The Age of Roosevelt.

"[39] Dave Langford reviewed Bare-Faced Messiah for White Dwarf #97, and stated that "I have a high opinion of Isaac Asimov's honesty and integrity: in sharp contrast to Hubbard, he's always been committed to truth.

"[42] Melton concludes that Miller's book is compromised by its author's lack of access to documents charting Hubbard's life[43] and the early history of the church.

[47] The British science fiction author and critic David Langford rated Miller's book as "altogether more even-toned and better-written" and argued that it "deserves to be a standard reference" on the life of Hubbard.

"[2] Malise Ruthven observed in the Times Literary Supplement that Miller "forces no thesis on his readers, allowing them to draw their own conclusion from the facts he uncovers.

He also expressed frustration that Miller had not explained how Hubbard had achieved such a following, but complimented the author's meticulous research in separating fact from fiction.

[52] The New Statesman praised Bare-Faced Messiah as accessibly written and diligently researched but, like Private Eye, criticised it for not illuminating why people find Scientology appealing.

[7] Patrick Skene Catling's review in The Spectator recommended the book "unreservedly", calling it "an unsurpassably scathing study of money-mad, power-mad megalomania.

[54] The psychologist and TV presenter Anthony Clare listed Bare-faced Messiah in The Times as one of his books of the year for 1987, commenting that it was "a testament to the gullibility of man in the face of the charlatanry of Scientology",[55] while the film and literary critic Tom Hutchinson complimented Miller for "fascinatingly recount[ing]" what he described as Hubbard's "bizarre career.

"[56] In Canada, David Todd of news magazine Maclean's commended the way that Miller had "arriv[ed] at a portrait of [Scientology's] founder that is by turns hilarious and deeply unsettling", commenting that "while scathingly critical of Hubbard and his church, Bare-Faced Messiah is, in fact, scrupulously fair.

"[57] Michael Harrison of the Toronto Financial Post criticised the book for "lack[ing] a critical perspective beyond the requisite snide commentary" and professed himself disappointed by Miller's avoidance of the question of whether Hubbard was "genuine or just a fraud", which Harrison considered an important omission "since the questions of selfishness, integrity and motivation are key issues in biographies of people who suffer from the messiah-complex.".

"[59] Alan Roberts wrote in the Adelaide Advertiser that Bare-Faced Messiah was a "minutely researched, densely evidenced account" of the "endless catalogue of deception, distortion and psychopathological mendacity" perpetrated by Hubbard and "almost tediously chronicled" by Miller.

"[20] Charles Platt, writing in The Washington Post'', called the book "impressively thorough" though he chided Miller for "miss[ing] no opportunity to poke fun at Hubbard.

"[62] His review was subsequently disputed by the Church of Scientology International's vice president, Brian Anderson, who denounced the book in a letter to the newspaper, claiming that it had been "obviously calculated to make a quick buck capitalizing on L. Ron Hubbard's name" and was a "fast and shoddy" work.