religion
Religiosity has been linked to a wide range of health outcomes, with evidence for both benefits and harms.
Alleged positive effects
Many studies have found positive associations between religious involvement and physical and mental health, including lower mortality, better self-rated health and greater psychological well‑being. However, most of this literature is methodologically weak, with selection bias, poor control for confounders and selective reporting, so firm causal conclusions are difficult.
Religiosity and spirituality have frequently been associated with positive effects on mental health, such as higher levels of life satisfaction, meaning in life, hope, optimism and lower rates of depression, substance misuse and some forms of suicidal behaviour. Proposed mechanisms include social support from religious communities, promotion of coping resources, encouragement of health‑promoting behaviours and cognitive frameworks that help some people make sense of adversity.
In addition, observational studies have linked religious participation with positive effects on physical endpoints, such as reduced smoking, more moderate alcohol use and in some cases better cardiovascular outcomes and lower all‑cause mortality, though effect sizes are usually modest. Cross‑national analyses show that religious people sometimes report better self‑rated health, but these associations vary widely by country and are sensitive to socioeconomic and cultural context.onlinelibrary.
Alleged negative effects
Some aspects of religiosity might be harmful: religious struggles—such as feeling punished by God, spiritual discontent or conflict with religious communities—are consistently associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress. Some studies also suggest that rigid or punitive religious beliefs can exacerbate guilt, internalized stigma (for example around sexuality) and delay help‑seeking for mental illness.
In highly secular societies, belonging to a religious minority may correlate with poorer health, possibly via discrimination, lower social integration or economic disadvantage. A critical economic analysis even reports a negative relationship between religious background and some health indicators once socioeconomic factors are carefully controlled, challenging simple “religion is good for you” narratives.
Methodological problems
Much of the evidence relies on observational studies, making it difficult to be sure about causality: healthier or more socially integrated people may be more likely to be religiously active. Measures of religiosity and spirituality are heterogeneous, ranging from attendance to private practices to diffuse “spiritual well‑being”, which complicates comparisons and may inflate positive findings. In other words, the effects of religiosity on health are less that certain or clear.
Conversion therapy is a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual, or to change their gender identity from transgender or non-binary to cisgender. The practice is built on the false premise that being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness or a developmental flaw that can and should be “cured.” It can range from talk therapy and prayer groups to extreme and physically abusive techniques, such as aversion therapy. Major medical, psychiatric, and psychological organizations worldwide have overwhelmingly rejected conversion therapy. Research consistently shows that it is completely ineffective and causes severe psychological harm, including high rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide. Because of these dangers, dozens of countries have banned or heavily restricted the practice.
Amongst all the many dubious SCAM therapies, conversion therapy must be amongst the most vile, as discussed previously several times, e.g.:
- “Gay exorcism” and conversion therapy by the “Forward In Faith Church International Incorporated” in Scotland
- The ‘Association of Catholic Doctors’ and homeopathic conversion therapy
- Conversion therapy is ‘despicable and degrading’. IT SHOULD BE BANNED EVERYWHERE
Now the Church of England has decided to permit a General Synod event promoting “sexual identity transformation”, i.e. conversion therapy. Entitled “People Change: Sexual Identity Transformation”, the event features Matthew Grech, who claims to have left behind a homosexual lifestyle. Hosted by General Synod member Rebecca Hunt, the meeting highlights speakers who claim to have experienced “positive, beneficial change,” aligning with the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage. Although the Church cancelled an associated exhibition stand, the meeting itself is going ahead despite a 2017 Synod vote overwhelmingly rejecting conversion therapy.
This story unfolded shortly after the UK Government published its draft Conversion Practices Bill, aimed at banning abusive attempts to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Humanists UK have long advocated for a comprehensive, loophole-free ban on these discredited and harmful practices, which seek to change, suppress, or “cure” LGBT individuals through coercive counselling, pseudo-psychological interventions, or intense prayer.
Crucially, data from the National LGBT Survey highlights that faith groups are the primary setting for conversion therapy. Furthermore, the LGBT+ charity Galop has documented numerous cases of faith-based conversion abuse.
Laura Newlyn, Policy and Campaigns Manager at Humanists UK, emphasized that conversion practices cause lasting harm, particularly to young and vulnerable individuals facing intense pressure from religious communities. She rejected the idea that these practices constitute harmless pastoral care or ordinary prayer, stressing that most of the public, including most Christians, support a ban. Humanists UK maintains that any effective legislation must fully cover religious settings and eliminate exemptions for “consent” or religious practices to ensure all LGBT individuals are protected from abuse.
The Church of Scientology has spent decades insisting that psychiatry is a terrorist conspiracy, antidepressants are a gateway to mass murder, and only its own “tech” can save humanity from the menace of Prozac and similar “poisons”. One might imagine this worldview would remain safely quarantined within L. Ron Hubbard’s realm of loons.
But then Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services!
By pure coincidence Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” crusade, unveiled with the MAHA Action Plan to Curb Psychiatric Overprescribing, just happens to target the very same SSRIs that Scientology and its front group CCHR have been demonising for years. Antidepressants are singled out, deprescribing is framed as a patriotic duty, and psychotherapy and lifestyle tweaks are held up as the noble alternative to “overmedicalization.” The American Psychiatric Association calls SSRIs evidence‑based treatment; Kennedy, channelling his inner CCHR lawyer, suggests they’re harder to quit than heroin and may be helping to fuel mass violence.
Enter Wisner Baum, the mass‑tort firm whose senior partners have long, colourful histories with Scientology and its covert operations. This firm has spent years suing antidepressant manufacturers and other psychiatric technologies. And Kennedy has quietly pocketed over $850,000 in fees from them, while keeping a continuing financial interest as HHS Secretary. It is hard to imagine a neater arrangement: a Scientology‑linked law firm sues drug companies; a Scientology‑approved health secretary casts doubt on those same drugs from the cabinet; and fee income flows merrily along.
So, is Kennedy formally a Scientologist?
No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for that. But perhaps the label becomes somewhat unimportant, when the nation’s top health official is advancing policy that mirrors Scientology’s doctrine and staying financially intertwined with its legal defender. Whether or not he has taken the oath or not (and I am not saying he has), he seems to be doing the work of Xenu, the mysterious extraterrestrial ruler of a galactic confederacy.
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
When I look at the pictures from major meetings of national or international meetings of SKEPTICS, or attend such gargerings in person, I often ask myself:
Why are there so few Black or Asian skeptics?*
Trying to research the answer, one finds several possible explanations:
Science, racism, trust
For many Black communities, the history of medicine and science includes Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, forced sterilization, and other abuses that were justified in “scientific” language. This legacy can understandably foster suspicion toward institutions that present themselves as guardians of “science” or “rationality”. When skeptical organisations then look very white and middle‑class, they can be perceived as aligned with the same institutions that historically harmed these communities.
In that context, a Black person may be personally critical of superstition and pseudoscience but not feel that joining a mainly white skeptical association is in their interest or aligned with their primary struggles, which may centre on racism, policing, or economic inequality rather than homeopathy or ghost busting.
Different priorities and “linked fate”
Many Black Americans report a strong sense of “linked fate”: what happens to Black people as a group is perceived as happening to them personally. That tends to channel activism toward civil-rights–oriented movements, churches, or community organisations rather than abstract “science advocacy” or secular-skeptic clubs.
So, the issue is not necessarily a lack of skeptical thinking, but that energies are directed towards challenges that feel more existentially pressing: discrimination, policing, housing, schooling, and health inequities. From inside those struggles, debunking astrology or acupuncture may seem like a luxury concern, or even a distraction pushed by people who do not share the same views.
Asian “model minority” and conformity pressures
For many Asian communities, there is a different but related dynamic. In North America and parts of Europe, Asians are often cast as hardworking, quiet, technically competent, and apolitical. This stereotype rewards conformity and discourages public confrontation, especially with majority institutions. Publicly criticizing religious traditions, so-called alternative medicine, or family elders’ beliefs can thus carry a significant social cost.
At the same time, Asian-origin populations also experience racism, but often in a way that minimizes their grievances: they are told that they are doing “better” and therefore should not complain. In such a setting, aligning oneself with explicitly “white-coded” skeptical organisations can risk being used as a wedge against other minorities or being seen as rejecting one’s own culture.
Culture of skeptical movements
Organized skeptical and secular movements historically emerged from highly educated, often male, often white, often middle‑class networks in Europe and North America. Their imagery, leadership, and priorities reflect that origin: emphasis on evolution vs. creationism, New Atheism, and critiques of Christian fundamentalism, rather than, say, the intersection of racism, religion, and health.
Such movements can appear:
- Culturally narrow (little attention to non‑Western religions or folk practices except as “targets”)
- Blind to racial power structures (e.g., defending “science” without acknowledging racist uses of science)
- Hostile to religion in general, even when churches serve as important community centres for marginalized groups
The above-mentioned phenomena (Iam sure theree are more, and I would be gratedful, if readers could list more) might generate a sense amongst black and Asian communities that the organised skeptics are “not for us” – even amongst individuals who are personally secular, tational, and critical of pseudoscience.
But, of course, there are many Black and Asian skeptics. The ability to think critically is by no means a white monopoly. These guys form their own networks (e.g., Black humanist groups, Secular Buddhists) or they remain more locally embedded rather than visible in mainstream skeptical conferences. Personally, I would welcome, if Black and Asian people would join mainstream skeptics in greater number, and if mainstream skepic organisations would realise that they must make a greater effort to attract them.
*To be honest, I have no figures to back up my impression, and I was unable to find reliable statistics. But I do think that my impression is nonetheless correct.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric is systematically racialized and frequently functions as a “dog whistle” to mobilize his racist followers. Here are but a few examples:
- July 1989 (On the Central Park Five): “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.” (From a full-page newspaper advertisement Trump took out regarding five Black and Latino teenagers accused of assault; the men were later fully exonerated by DNA evidence, but Trump repeatedly refused to apologize or rescind the sentiment).
- October 1993 (House Subcommittee Hearing on Native American Casinos): “They don’t look like Indians to me… and they don’t look like Indians to Indians.” (Questioning the authenticity of Connecticut tribal members operating competing casinos).
- June 2015 (Presidential Announcement Speech): “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
- January 2018 (Oval Office Meeting on Immigration): “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” (Referring to immigrants from Haiti and African nations during a bipartisan meeting, as corroborated by attending senators).
- July 2019 (On Baltimore and Rep. Elijah Cummings): “Cumming [sic] District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place… No human being would want to live there.”
- July 2019 (Twitter Statements on Democratic Congresswomen): “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.” (Directed at four minority Democratic congresswomen, three of whom were born in the United States).
- December 2019 (Speech to the Israeli American Council): “A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me—you have no choice… You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax.” (Invoking the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish people are solely motivated by money and financial self-interest).
- December 2023 (Campaign Rally in New Hampshire): “They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”
- April 2026 (televised national address from the White House, marking Trump’s first formal address to the nation since the outbreak of the military conflict with Iran) “We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks… We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong.”
An analysis of his public statements and Truth Social posts revealed a abhorrent pattern: approximately 80% of the individuals he labels as “low IQ” are people of colour, specifically Black or Hispanic public figures. The term could theoretically be used as a neutral insult; however, Trump’s skewed application clearly evokes a long history of racist pseudo-science once upon a time used to justify claims of intellectual inferiority among non-white populations. Trump often reserves his most vitriolic attacks on intelligence for non-white targets. He often compounds these insults with additional degrading language, such as:
- Ketanji Brown Jackson: Described as “that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench”.
- Maxine Waters: Repeatedly labelled “extraordinarily low IQ” and “the face of the Democrat party”.
- Don Lemon: Referred to as “the dumbest man on television”.
When targeting white opponents, Trump tends to use labels like “crooked,” “weak,” or “disgraceful.” In contrast, his attacks on Black and Brown figures – including his description of congress women of colour as “mentally deranged” or “sick” – focus on cognitive or mental fitness, echoing historical tropes used to exclude marginalised groups from public life.
Research into the 2016 and 2020 elections suggests that support for Trump was more strongly tied to racial resentment and xenophobia than to “economic anxiety.” Exposure to such rhetoric can measurably increase the public expression of prejudice. Trump’s rhetoric often aligns with his administration’s policy priorities, which were frequently criticized as racially discriminatory:
- The “Muslim Ban”: An executive order targeting several Muslim-majority nations.
- Immigration Enforcement: Hardline policies, such as “zero tolerance” at the border, which disproportionately affected Latinx communities.
- Overt Commentary: Infamous descriptions of African nations as “shithole countries” and the use of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory to describe immigration.
Beyond specific insults, Trump’s broader narrative frequently utilizes dehumanizing imagery. He has, for instance, frequently amplified or “retweeted” supporters who use racist caricatures – such as those depicting the Obamas in a derogatory manner. Recent comments labelling nations like India and China as “hellholes” further underscore a worldview defined by national/ racial hierarchies.
Taken together, the combination of targeted slurs, racially skewed insults, and discriminatory policies provides a substantial evidentiary base for arguing that Trump’s rhetoric is not merely accidental, but a strategic effort to appeal to xenophobic and white-nationalist segments of the electorate.
Does that make him a racist?
Or are his comments merely an expression of his profound stupidity?
I let you decide.
I came across an interesting paper entitled “The Ethics of Tawas and Other Rituals in Medical Practices“. Here is its abstract:
Rituals in medical practice have either been seen as an anthropological aspect of current biomedical processes or as a pre-scientific aspect of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In either tendency, the literature has since failed to account for these rituals as rituals—conveyors of meaning, expressions of identity, and even as a rite of passage from illness to wellness. As an alternative to current discussions, this paper presents the case study of tawas, a diagnostic ritual from Philippine traditional medicine that determines personalistic and mystical causes of illnesses. As a non-intrusive procedure, tawas involves incantations and some ritual objects, e.g., rice, candle, axe, etc., that do not pose any direct harm nor benefit to the patient. While complete reliance on tawas at the expense of proper medical procedures could harm patients, the very ritual of tawas itself occupies a limbo within non-beneficence and non-maleficence. Following a Wittgensteinian perspective of treating rituals as meaning-laden human activities, this paper argues that rituals like tawas, much like other rituals embedded in biomedical practices, should be understood as rituals and not as empirical cures, thereby allowing their tolerance in medical practice in general.
The author seems to advocate for the cultural integration of traditional practices like tawas into a broader medical framework. They categorize tawas not as a physiological intervention, but define it as a conveyor of meaning. By addressing the “meaning-laden” aspect of illness, the ritual may address the psychological and social dimensions of a patient’s health, even if it has no effect on their physical pathology.
It is claimed that, since tawas involves non-intrusive objects (candles, rice), it is physically benign. At the same time it is acknowledged that “complete reliance” on tawas could harm patients. From a clinical safety standpoint, the “limbo” is only maintained if the ritual is strictly adjunctive rather than alternative.
The text uses a Wittgensteinian perspective, focusing on rituals as expressions rather than theories. Modern neuroscience suggests that the “ritual” of care—the white coat, the focused attention, the diagnostic process—triggers real neurobiological changes (e.g., dopamine and endorphin release). Aacknowledging the symbolic healing power that rituals have on patient anxiety and the “meaning response,” which can objectively improve health outcomes by reducing cortisol and stress.
The author identifies tawas as a diagnostic ritual which might well be the most contentious point. In science, a “diagnosis” must be reliable and valid. Tawas clearly fails the scientific criteria for validity. The author’s defence is that tawas shouldn’t be judged by those criteria at all. While this might be philosophically sound, in a clinical setting, a “mystical diagnosis” must conflict with a biological one, potentially leading to patient non-compliance with life-saving treatments.
Ita Wegman (22 February 1876 – 4 March 1943) was born 150 years ago today. Together with Rudolf Steiner, she was a central figure in the development of anthroposophic medicine, an approach that interprets illness through spiritual–cosmological concepts. In 1921, Wegman founded the Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut in Arlesheim, Switzerland—today the Ita Wegman Clinic—the first hospital dedicated to anthroposophic medicine. Practices developed there included rhythmical massage, a gentle bodywork technique intended to “harmonize” physiological rhythms, and mistletoe-based cancer therapy derived from Viscum album, later marketed as Iscador, as well as many other remedies influences by homeopathy. Wegman also co-founded Weleda, which remains a major producer of anthroposophic remedies and cosmetics.
Despite its continued use in parts of Europe, mistletoe therapy (including Iscador) has not demonstrated reliable clinical efficacy in improving cancer survival or tumor outcomes in well-controlled trials. Major systematic reviews conclude that evidence for benefit is inconsistent, methodologically weak, and often biased, with any reported improvements largely limited to subjective quality-of-life measures. It is therefore regarded by mainstream oncology as an unproven therapy rather than an evidence-based treatment. For Wegman’s other therapeutic innovations the evidence is even less convincing.
Her collaboration with Steiner was both professionally formative and personally intense. They met in the early 1900s, and Wegman later credited Steiner with inspiring her decision to pursue medicine relatively late, enrolling at the University of Zurich. From 1919 onward, their cooperation deepened: Steiner supplied esoteric frameworks derived from anthroposophy, while Wegman sought to translate these ideas into clinical practice. Their collaboration culminated in the book “Fundamentals of Therapy” (1925), published shortly after Steiner’s death.
Speculation about a romantic relationship between Wegman and Steiner has persisted for decades. Purported “love letters” dated to 1924 describe expressions of affection, but most scholars regard them as forgeries, citing factual errors, the absence of originals from Steiner archives, and stylistic inconsistencies with Steiner’s documented correspondence. Steiner himself described their bond in karmic terms, claiming a debt from a past incarnation that explained their closeness despite his marriage to Marie von Sivers. Historian Peter Selg and others interpret the relationship as an intense spiritual and intellectual partnership rather than a conventional affair, though contemporaries did circulate rumors.
Steiner died on March 30, 1925, after a prolonged illness. The exact cause remains uncertain and not definitively confirmed as stomach cancer. Wegman provided Steiner’s main care from September 1924 until his death, leaving her clinic to nurse him in his studio at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland. She is said to have employed anthroposophic approaches, but specific treatments remain sparsely documented in available accounts.
Following Steiner’s death, Wegman’s authority within the movement became increasingly contested. In 1935 she was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society amid internal power struggles and accusations of doctrinal deviation; this expulsion was formally reversed in 2018. Wegman’s political stance during the Nazi period remains controversial. While anthroposophy as a movement was partially suppressed in Nazi Germany, several leading anthroposophists – including Wegman – sought accommodation rather than resistance. Wegman expressed hopes in the early 1930s that National Socialism might support a spiritual renewal of society and did not publicly oppose the regime. Although she was not a member of the Nazi Party and later faced restrictions, her posture is best described as opportunistic accommodation and ideological ambiguity.
Wegman’s collaboration with Steiner created the foundations of anthroposophic medicine. It also generated enduring scientific, ethical, and political controversies – particularly regarding the medical validity of its treatments and its leaders’ responses to authoritarian power after Steiner’s death.
- “The Law of Karma: What you sow is what you reap. If you plant carrots, don’t expect to harvest watermelons.”
- “If you want to see change in the world, become the change you want to see.”
- “If you want to reach a state of Bliss — make a decision to relinquish the need to control, the need to be approved and the need to judge.”
- “Negative people deplete your energy. Surround yourself with love and nourishment and do not allow the creation of negativity in your environment.”
- “If you want to do really important things in life and big things in life, you can’t do anything by yourself. And your best teams are your friends and your siblings.”
- “Everyone is acting from his own level of consciousness. This is all we can ask of ourselves or anyone else.”
You probably guessed: these gems of wisdom originate from, Deepak Chopra, the guru of platitude-loving Americans. If you don’t want to spend your money on buying one of his books, you can go on the Internet, find one of several available ‘bullshit generators’ and create similarly profound wisdoms all by yourself.
As Deepak is seen to be virtually overflowing with wisdom, spirituality, consciousness, and holistic health, it is perhaps surprising to find his inclusion in the Epstein Files. The link stems primarily from email correspondence and other communications between him and Epstein that have been made public as part of the ongoing disclosures. The records show repeated exchanges dating from at least 2016 through 2019 — well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction as a sex offender — in which the two men discuss a range of topics. These include scheduling meetings or meetings plans, mentions of other public figures, discussions tied to Chopra’s book projects, and exchanges that veer into casual and at times explicit language about “girls” or women. One of the widely circulated emails has Chopra writing to Epstein, “God is a construct. Cute girls are real,” in an apparently informal exploration of consciousness and personal views.
Another released thread shows discussions about meeting logistics, references to public figures such as Marla Maples (the former wife of Donald Trump), and social anecdotes that reveal the personal tenor of some exchanges. These materials were part of the dataset provided to Congress under subpoena as part of its oversight of the Epstein files.
Inclusion in the Epstein Files does not establish that Chopra was involved in any criminal activity or exploitative conduct. U.S. authorities and journalists emphasise that the raw disclosures document communications and connections — not necessarily illegal behavior — and require careful interpretation.
Nonetheless, many of the public reactions to Chopra’s appearance in these disclosures have been sharp. Social media posts and news coverage have highlighted the tone of certain messages, leading to debate and scrutiny from both followers and critics. In response to the heightened attention and criticism, Deepak Chopra issued a public statement acknowledging the gravity of what has been revealed and offering regret for the way some past communications may read in light of what the world now widely knows about Epstein’s crimes. He wrote on social media that he was “deeply saddened by the suffering of the victims in this case” and that he “unequivocally condemn[s] abuse and exploitation in all forms.” Chopra also stated that any contact he had with Epstein was “limited and unrelated to abusive activity,” and he described some of his past messages as reflecting “poor judgment in tone.”
One such ‘sharp reaction’ appeared on Facebook. As it is quite funny as well as very poignant, allow me to show it to you:
Annie McCubbin 6 February at 10:20
WOW DEEPAK THIS SEEMS TO BE A QUANTUM OF A MESS YOU’VE GOT YOURSELF INTO.
Well looky looky here. In the quantum field of possibilities, Deepak has manifested himself one thousand three hundred mentions in the Epstein files.
With the cavalier camaraderie of two average dudes leaning on the bonnet of a pick-up truck, Chopra and Epstein, amid nauseating pseudo intellectual discourse, discuss the noises cute girls make, and whether or not Deepak had found Epstein a cute Israeli.
This, it should be noted, is ten years after Epstein was registered as sex offender of children.
Chopra has made an admission, of sorts. It has the tone of someone who has spent his life beguiling his followers from behind a screen of opaque confounding verbiage, so I guess it’s true to form when he writes the sentence: –
‘Some past emails have surfaced that reflect poor judgement in tone. I regret that and understand how they read today given what was publicly known at the time.’
No Deepak, you purveyor of impenetrable piffle, it’s not how they read ‘today’, it’s just how they read. So how about you take out the obfuscating ‘today’, turn comments back on, come out from behind the infinite consciousness of the karmic trance of the egoic super self, and face the music.
These emails are not anachronistic innocent exchanges between two older gentlemen musing in a reflective way about the opposite sex. No, these men presented a clear and present danger to women. These exchanges are between a seventy-one-year grifter who has promised his millions of followers hope and healing, and a sixty-four-year-old registered sex offender who had been charged with procuring a minor for prostitution.
So, this great spiritual leader. This purveyor of divine transcendence. This guru who imbues his incomprehensible gobbledy gook with the historical spiritual relevance of the subcontinent, has shown a complete paucity of decency, care and morality
Not only are his discussions with Epstein disturbing but they’re peppered with moments where he cynically mocks his own spiritual repartee.
Perhaps his millions of followers who may have felt spiritually dull witted, may be relieved to discover that his entire shtick is a simple reordering of the following eighteen words:-Consciousness, meditation, infinite, universe, god, vibration, stillness, mirror, manifest, luminous. elemental, connection, awareness, love, gratitude, eternal, karma, and divine.
His collection of books, videos, podcasts, products like ‘The ritual care kit.’ supplements and ‘wellness retreats.’ are not the result of Deepak’s deep wisdom but merely pseudoscientific quasi spiritual guff, concocted with all the care of a four-year-old making a cake with dirt, a hair clip, their mothers Estée Lauder anti-aging cream and the stuffing from the dog’s toy rabbit.
Why do so many of us collapse so willingly into the arms of these grifter gurus?
Well, we are told the answer to our emptiness is to look within. We are just an inspirational quote away from happiness. We are seduced by bite sized morsels of the transcendent to sooth our souls.
We can ask what is missing from my life, and the answer will be delivered in three hours via Amazon. $35 plus shipping. How easy is it to sit on our couches and have the soothing tone of Deepak deliver an immersive learning experience into our noise cancelling head phones? Maybe we may muse, it would be truly beneficial to attend one of his wellness retreats. What’s money when we’re on the path to enlightenment? Perhaps we’ll discover the divine goddess within? Seems easier than fighting for the actual rights of women.
Connecting to the self is given a big rap in wellness circles but it seems to be at the cost of reconnecting with others.
The self-care, self-love movement, implying poverty or illness is a misalignment with the abundance on offer from the universe, absolves its’ followers of any responsibility to help others. You sick or poor? Manifest better.
It has been a fabulous distraction from the rapacity of the neocons, dismantling our social structures and denuding our public services, confident in the knowledge we’re too busy healing from within to look outward.
But the empty void within will not be filled by listening to the lilting tones of Deepak. By all means work out your maladaptive patterns and beliefs by talking to a psychologist but maybe swear off the gurus for a bit. It seems they all, at some point, fall from grace.
Chopra while preaching love compassion and peace, was showing off to his convicted sex offender friend, that he can play the misogynistic game as good as the big boys. Meanwhile women all over the world are dying at the hands of their partners. Men schooled and supported in the ideology that women are lesser beings to be controlled, used, punished and discarded.
To so lightly squander the loyalty of your trusting audience seems careless of you Deepak, but maybe the grifting isn’t over. Maybe you can obfuscate out of this, and have an online well published dark night of the soul replete with a brand-new great awakening. There has to be a couple of apps and a book in it.
I hope not. I hope this tearing in the space time continuum has revealed the black hole of grifting where the snake oil salesman sit waiting with their three easy payment options.
Anyway, let us end on one of Deepak’s quotes. ‘Karma memory and desire are just the software of the soul.’
Well Deepak, better strap in, I hear karma can be a real bitch.
This study aimed to distinguish between the usage of complementary medicine and alternative medicine, often jointly referred to as CAM. Furthermore, the analysis focuses on the role of religion, healthcare system satisfaction and the country of residence.
The analysis uses data of the International Social Survey Programme 2021 “Health and Health Care II” (ISSP 2021) to estimate the prevalence of complementary medicine and alternative medicine. A nested logistic regression model was applied to distinguish between no medicine use, conventional medicine, complementary medicine and alternative medicine.
The findings indicate the following:
- Complementary medicine is significantly more prevalent than alternative medicine, though substantial cross-country differences are observed.
- While religious affiliation alone does not show a significant relationship with CAM usage, individuals who attend religious services regularly are more likely to use CAM in a complementary manner, alongside conventional medicine.
- Individuals who are dissatisfied with the health care system also are more likely to use both complementary medicine and alternative medicine.
- Higher levels of education are negatively associated with the use of alternative medicine.
- Younger individuals are more likely to use CAM and specific alternative medicine, compared to older age groups.
- Being female is consistently associated with a higher chance of CAM usage overall.
The authorsconcluded that treating complementary and alternative medicine as distinct reveals different prevalence rates and influencing factors. Religion, satisfaction with the healthcare system, education, age, and gender play varying roles depending on whether CAM is used alongside or instead of conventional medicine. Cross-country differences point to cultural and health system influences. For public health, distinguishing between complementary and alternative use can support more targeted strategies to promote safe integration and reduce risks from substituting conventional treatment.
Complementary medicine is defined as medicine being used alongside conventional medicine; alternative medicine is defined as medicine being used instead of conventional medicine. This distinction is problematic, if not impossible. One and the same therapy can be used in an alternative fashion today and in a complementary way tomorrow. One and the same therapy will often be used in an alternative fashion for one condition and in a complementary way for another. In other words there are no alternative medicines as distinct from complementary medicines. There are merely distinct ways of using these therapies.
In turn this means that the above paper set out from a flawed premise. But perhaps it nevertheless generated some interesting findings? Let’s look at the points listed above:
- This has been noted many times before.
- This has been noted many times before.
- This has been noted many times before.
- This is invalid because of the points above.
- This has been noted many times before.
- This has been noted many times before.
My conclusion: much of the research into so-called alternative medicine is hardly worth the paper that it is printed on.
