So you knock his reputation and skill on gossip you read without firsthand experience other than looking at his photos on the web claiming you're "not fond of them", who has made tens of millions selling his photographs from his galleries in the biggest cities in the world.
It isn't "gossip".
It is the New York Times, backed up by similar information from other sources that have the same stake in the veracity and reliability of their statements and analysis.
There are lots of people out there who have made millions selling product that sells because it is popular or trendy - which is fine as long as there aren't attached to it representations about the long term value and collectability of that product that are, at best, optimistic, and at worst, hyperbolic puffery.
And as for the work not being something I'm fond of, well I'm not fond if it.
It isn't the type of work that I seek out or that resonates strongly with me.
The prices his work commands in his own galleries, sold by his own commissioned salespeople, are hardly likely to be representative of what discerning buyers who have the choice to buy from multiple sources, while competing against other potential buyers, would be willing to pay.
So many of his photos look like you might consider buying them because they go well with the carpet and add a splash of drama and colour to the living room.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, if you like Peter Lik's photos and would enjoy having one above your couch and are willing to pay what I consider to be an overly inflated price for them - go for it. I just don't think that the price attached to them is anything more than the result of sales and gimmickry.