In his book “Perpetuated in Righteousness” Handy is quoted 11 times by Kikawa. He wrote:

“Two instances of the existence of Io as a name invoked in important ritual in Hawaii were noted in my study of Polynesian Religion (p. 97) published by the Bishop Museum in 1927. In 1931 Mrs. Emma Ahuena Taylor published in the Paradise of the Pacific in Honolulu an article on Io-lani as a divinity of great sanctity, mentioning prayers handed down from a priestly ancestor who was tutor of the great Kamehameha in Kohala on the island of Hawaii. In 1932 Ahuena (Mrs. Taylor) and her mother, through whom the prayers were inherited, permitted Miss Stella M. Jones, then working at the Bishop Museum as my field assistant, to copy from their private manuscript book three prayers referred to but not printed in Ahuena's article. These I carefully studied with Ahuena at the Bishop Museum that same year and shortly thereafter practically the same invocations were presented to Dr. Buck at the Museum by a student of native lore who received them from a local Hawaiian scholar belonging to the same royal line of descent as Ahuena. This scholar stipulated that the prayers should not be published during his life time. Ahuena, on the other hand, felt the time had come to reveal this Hawaiian cult, which she believed to be akin to the Io worship of the Maori.”

Kikawa says he knows of a Hawaiian woman who claims her family was the guardian of the knowledge of 'Io. that 'Io was the one True God." the endnote is, "Oral to Tomas Watene Rosser." It’s from another source and never spoke with her personally. Its the same with Taylor, who died in 1937, there is no provable connection.

On p. 58 Kikawa writes, “The most detailed knowledge of 'Io in Hawaii was revealed by Emma Ahuena Taylor, a descendant of one of the priesthoods of Io, in 1931. Stating what she had was “limited and only broken fragments remained."

It needs to be mentioned what Kenneth Emory wrote: “While Handy has demonstrated that 'Io is not Io of the Maoris, yet through his acceptance of many unsupported statements from Mrs. Ahuena Taylor who believed that 'Io and Io were the same, Handy emerges with a god who has much of the Maori Io. This largely disappears when Mrs. Taylor is dropped as an informant” (p.207 The Hawaiian God 'IO, By Kenneth P. Emory. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, T.H.)

In other words she was not a reputable source.

Emory is known as the father of modern Polynesian studies whose works span all four major fields of anthropology: archaeology, physical anthropology, ethnography and linguistics. He became the first chairman of anthropology at Bishop Museum, so his opinion matters. (http://has.bishopmuseum.org/index.asp)

He goes on: “I have learned from members of the Sons and Daughters of Hawaiian Warriors, a society of which Mrs. Taylor was president for years, that the Maoris who visited Hawaii were lavishly entertained by them. Mrs. Taylor's article which appeared in 1931 reflects her conviction that the Maori Io and the Hawaiian 'Io were one, though of course, a critical student would realize that to be the same name, the Maori would have to be Kio.

The allocation to the Hawaiian 'Io of the position of Jehovah and the ascription to the name of such sacredness that neither “chieftains nor priests dared utter the word Io”, suggests that Mrs. Taylor's mother, Mrs. Mary J. Montano, before writing what her daughter quotes from her private papers (13, p.78), had allowed her conception of the Hawaiian 'Io to be colored by her knowledge of the Maori Io. (Mrs. Montano was living at the time her daughter wrote the article on 'Io). (The Hawaiian God 'IO, By Kenneth P. Emory. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, T.H.)

So much more is said by Handy “The worship of Io in Hawaii is specifically the veneration of Buteo solitarius, the Hawaiian hawk. This bird is called the io (o), because “it makes a chirping sound, like a little chick” (10). It will be well to describe the hawk as bird before considering it as a god. When we come to the prayers addressed to Io, and to alternative names for the god, it will be evident that terms, phrases, and names refer to the bird. …. But the essential point that needs to be stressed at the outset of this article is that the cult of Io in Hawaii is not the veneration of an abstract concept but specifically the worship of the hawk. Hawaiian Io-worship is a bird-cult” (Volume 50 1941, Volume 50, No. 199 The Hawaiian cult of Io, by E. S. Craighill Handy, p 134-159)

How Kikawa can use this mans research as support is beyond me. Handy is saying the opposite of Kikawa. Handy who wrote Polynesian Religion and the Hawaiian cult of ‘Io investigated Matarohanga’s account of the name Io in some Hawaiian charts. He found that the name Io was applied to the Hawaiian Hawk because it cries with the sound ioio.

Kepelino, writing in 1859 (10, p.2G5) says of the hawk, “It is named for its cry.” The hawk, then, which does not occur elsewhere in tropical Polynesia, was named for its cry, and not for a god named 'Io. (Journal of the Polynesian Society, The Hawaiian God Io by Kenneth P. Emory)

Kenneth P. Emory, “At that time Handy pointed out that the combination of Io and Uli, in the name lo-uli, suggested a relationship between lo and Uli, "patron god of the priesthood of Hawaii." While then expressing the opinion that the Maori cult of a supreme being, Io, was "truly an ancient feature of Polynesian religion" he cautioned that proof was lacking that this reference to Io in Hawaii was to a supreme being (5, p.97). Now, after his later findings which include several Hawaiian prayers in which 'Io is mentioned, he concludes that "the worship of 'lo in Hawaii is specifically the veneration of Buteo solitarius, the Hawaiian hawk [`io], and that 'Io and Uli are one and the same god, 'Io being his esoteric name.

While then expressing the opinion that the Maori cult of a supreme being, Io, was “truly an ancient feature of Polynesian religion” he cautioned that proof was lacking that this reference to Io in Hawaii was to a supreme being (p.97). (Journal of the Polynesian Society vol.51 The Hawaiian God `IO. Kenneth P. Emory. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, T.H.

Peter Buck (who Kikawa quote 16 times in his book) to support his universal supreme God theory said of “Emory (37, p. 200) stressed the fact that the hawk, which does not occur elsewhere in tropical Polynesia, was named because of its cry and not after a god named Io. He showed that the name should be written with the hamza as 'Io, which in the New Zealand dialect would be Kio. Hence, there was no linguistic connection between the Hawaiian 'Io (=Kio) and the Maori Io.” (P.535 Peter Buck, the Coming of the Maori).

Peter Buck, his Maori name Te Rangi Hiroa, was a talented man having many vocations anthropologist between 1922 and 1927 Buck published a series of scientific papers on Maori life, and in 1927 director of the Bishop Museum and visiting professor of anthropology at Yale University (1932–34, 1936, 1939). A researcher in Polynesian ethnology for the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu. He spent 25 years studying and writing about the native Polynesian cultures, His books documenting the Maori life include Vikings of the Sunrise (1938), and The Coming of the Maori (1947). Read more on this fascinating man.

Buck says of Handy: “The interest aroused in Io led Handy (49, p. 134) to investigate the occurrence of the name Io in some of the Hawaiian chants. He pointed out that the name Io was applied to the Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) because of its cry of ioio. He concluded that Io worship in Hawaii was specifically a bird cult, primarily for the hawk (io) and secondarily for the owl (pueo). He identified Io with Uli, who was a sorcerer's god and more frequently mentioned in chants. Handy warned against trying to establish Io as the Supreme Being in Hawaii, for the evidence proved only that he was a protective deity in some of the rituals of certain chiefly and priestly lines.” (p.535 Peter Buck, The Coming of the Maori)

Io was said to be self created, not self existing. This is no minor difference. Self created is the opposite of always existing. Io the parentless is also named the self-created.  All the other gods were created by another, he created himself. This is why He is parentless. If this supreme god did not exist at a time in the past this means he is not the eternal god that always existed, before he created a thing. The God of the Bible was not self created therefore this god may be supreme but not the same as the God of the Bible.

In his book “The Coming of the Maori,” Buck explains, “Kanaloa was part of the original 4 (not 3) and was subtracted so there would be 3 …. He also writes neither Io of New Zealand nor Toaroa of Tahiti had a father or mother, so they had to create themselves by what might be termed auto deification, it was an easy matter for them to create or conjure forth other gods. (The Coming of the Maori, Buck p.435)

Robert Langdon in the book The Lost Caravel writes, “ …the only detailed account of Io is that contained in a manuscript dictated by a Maori named Te Matorohanga and taken down by another, Te Whatahoro. The manuscript, with English translations, appeared in print in 1913 as The Lore of the Whare-wanaga.

“This exalted personage was Io, who created all the processes of nature and caused the ahead existing gods to be. He was given various titles of which Io-matua-kore (Io-the-parentless) indicates that he himself was the very beginning. The old theology had a sky of ten successive levels, but the new version added two more and placed Io in residence in the highest heaven.” (P.274 Vikings of the Pacific by Peter Buck)

There were twelve heavens according to the researchers, Io lived in the twelfth. The bible says there’s 3; that’s 9 more heavens to get to where Io lives.

Best, who basically takes the position of Renan, states in his book: “The Maori as He Was”: “In regard to the superior cult of Io, the Supreme Being, its ritual was resorted to, or practised, only in connection with what were considered highly important matters. It never became known to the many, but was jealously conserved and retained by the few, hence it was not affected by degeneration as were similar concepts in other lands. The Maori preserved the purity of his conception of the Supreme Being by means of withholding it from the bulk of the people, hence Io was never degraded to the level of a tribal war-god, as was the case with Jahweh. To force monotheism on a barbaric people must necessarily result in a form of degeneration of a superior concept.” (The Maori as He Was by Best, p.70). [emphasis mine]

His statement has Io not part of a monotheistic belief system. Certainly this proves that Best did not consider Io the same God of the Bible who is Jahweh. For he also stated

In other words, he did not see them as the same: “Nor is there any resemblance between the Io of Maori myth and the somewhat truculent Jehovah of the Old Testament” (Maori Religion and Mythology by Peter Best p.47). Truculent means hostile, factious, in other words he considered Jehovah defiant. 

Eldson Best is quoted in Kikawa’s book but he did not include all that he said on Io in ancient times. “The Io of Grecian mythology was the personified form of the moon, but was changed into a cow. She is the same as Isis of Egyptians myth. The Manual of Mythology tells us that Ioh was an early Egyptian moon-god; but this to is equivalent to Hina and Sina, the personified form of the moon, in Polynesia and New Zealand, and not to Io the supreme god.” (p.49 God’s of the Maori by Best).