# Talk:Sexual abuse by yoga gurus

@Chiswick Chap: Fascinating, but saddening page. However, it struck me that the cumulative effect of this page is to compartmentalize the abuse as something modern and having to do with the psychological and power dynamics of commercialized yoga. Hence the use of Durkheim and Weber. But there is [not], nor can there be, any source that actually shows this. There are no reliable records of sexual abuse prior to the modern era. In fact, the very concept of sexual abuse may be only a modern idea. Further, the question of why sexual abuse occurs in any context is an open one. So, as a template, I propose Catholic sexual abuse which has the section==debate over causes==, which seems to me to be the proper NPOV to place both the philosophy of power dynamics, the implication of the modernization of yoga, and the Hindu defenses of these abuses. Sorry I don't have the time to do this now myself. But I'm happy to do it later. Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

DolyaIskrina - many thanks for looking over the page. I will see if I can action your comment to your satisfaction - I don't have any point of view in particular (other than I agree with your first sentence as a response to the evidence). As for cumulative effects, that really is just the evidence doing the talking. I've reorganised as I hope you intended. Do pop back in sometime and see if it's sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The website link to the 3HO/SSSC’s public access to the AOB report into the sexual allegations against Yogi Bhajan has been hacked twice and repaired once so far in 2 days. I included this PDF of the report while these hacks continue. Added this citation of the report in case users or other editors want to view the report themselves while the other link is being hacked.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h6W_UyinOeIThWJ3s0FS7o8egLKLWUYU/view?usp=drivesdk
Netal2001 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Stripping the Gurus, by Mr. Falk, is a questionable source. The matter has arisen previously on Wikipedia, such as here and in this AfD. The book claims to be published by the "Million Monkeys Press". It turns out that the Million Monkeys Press has published just four books, all by Mr. Falk. – Epipelagic (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the Falk material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The material on the Iyengar Yoga events involving the decertification of a yoga teacher does not concern a yoga guru (which would be Iyengar himself, or possibly Geeta). I've therefore moved it to the Iyengar Yoga article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this article is so specific to Indian yogic culture. It makes more sense to consider abuse in general by those in positions of power: for example other cases that arose during the Me Too movement, or by cases involving priests. Perhaps this article could benefit from merging/ or include more links related to abuse by people in power? 2A02:3032:4:C4AA:1:2:5774:E673 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, I disagree with the IP, however I think the article could be broadened to include yoga instructors, as there have been numerous cases. @Chiswick Chap, what are your thoughts on renaming the article "Sexual abuse by yoga gurus and instructors? Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Two reasons: firstly, the  gurus are a clearly distinct group, an entity of their own, and certainly notable since books have been written about them, and their misbehaviour; and because the current title accurately matches the article's scope. Supposing that an article on Sexual Abuse by Princes of Wales existed, and you asked for it to be retitled and extended to Sexual Abuse by Crown Princes of the World, or Sexual Abuse by members of ruling dynasties (to encompass dictators as well as Monarchies), then we'd reply that however fine those topics might be, they were clearly distinct, and there was no reason to change the scope of the existing article. Well, so it is here. And, by the way, the presence of "and" in a proposed article title is a sign that two disparate entities are being joined.
One other thing: the IP imagines that yoga gurus are necessarily Indian, but modern yoga gurus come from more than one country. It happens that most of those cited here were from India, reflecting the rise of modern yoga, but the club is not exclusive. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Got it - what you say about the presence of "and" makes sense; and changing the scope could make it unwieldy. I did not mention India as I did not agree with the IP on that. Netherzone (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Phrases like «assisting a yoga pupil in his own style» in accusatory tone shouldn't be present in an enciclopedia. If no one opposes, I will change them. WikiDasher (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, and since you ask, I object. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph quote about Swami Satyananda should be removed. It is a primary source.
As per WP:SECONDARY : "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences."
The Daily Telegraph is quoting Bhakti Manning, not the findings of the Royal Commission Report. As such, it is a primary source in this context, as it is simply quoting trial evidence. Furthermore, the Daily Telegraph is a news website and is not a reputable source for analysis, evaluation or interpretation of evidence given at trial - only the findings and report made by the Royal Commission are.
The Royal Commission findings are the most reputable secondary source on this topic. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

What is your interest in Swami Satyananda, exactly?    –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
The newspaper is a reliable secondary source, as it not only quotes but has evaluated what it states. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I am not talking about the newspaper in general, I am talking about the specific quote that is included in the Wikipedia page from the newspaper - "engaged in 'aggressive, violent sex' with numerous women and may have raped a seven-year-old" child".
From the article, the full paragraph states (emphasis mine):
"An Indian guru who founded the global Satyananda yoga movement engaged in “aggressive, violent sex” with numerous women and may have raped a seven-year-old, despite preaching chastity, an Australian inquiry has heard."
This means there was no evaluation of that statement, and it is basically verbatim evidence given to the inquiry. Please explain how this can be considered a secondary source per Wikipedia guidelines. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
We're going in circles. The Royal Commission is as I've said already in use in the article, but I see you neither read replies nor adjust your views, so I won't waste time repeatedly attempting to get you to listen to reason. I believe you to be wholly mistaken, but it is now time to wait for the views of other editors, or indeed to do the sensible thing and forget all about this thread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
We are not going in circles... you are. You are refusing to accept that the Daily Telegraph quote is WP:PRIMARY, and that the Royal Commission article reference should be the only acceptable quote included given its authority on the subject, and the fact that it is WP:SECONDARY.
Having the Royal Commission quote is not enough. The Daily Telegraph quote should be removed for the purpose of WP:NPOV. 135.180.194.31 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
As I have not received a response, I will be escalating this issue. I will be requesting third opinions and posting this on the NPOV noticeboard. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is called 'Sexual abuse by yoga gurus'. John Friend and Amrit Desai don't seem to have been accused of sexual abuse. They seem to have been accused of sexual impropriety as a result of affairs. This is an important distinction, and either should be clarified or their names removed.  157.131.56.74 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to say that Friend's activities were not simply improper; from a position of power and as a guru, of at least semi-religious or spiritual respect, his sexual activities constituted a clear abuse of the guru-follower relationship, no matter how "consensual" the sex may have been. This moral failure was enough to end his career and position at the head of Anusara Yoga, so they certainly considered it abuse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Abuse of the guru-disciple relationship is more appropriately termed Religious abuse, 'Spiritual abuse' or 'Guru abuse'. It encompasses a greater range of abuses than just sexual abuse. Hence, it is not appropriate to classify Friend's activities as 'Sexual abuse' because the term 'Sexual abuse' refers to a very specific type of abuse. It could be more appropriately termed as 'Spiritual abuse with sexual impropriety'. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I propose the article be renamed Sexual impropriety & abuse by yoga gurus. This name would encompass a greater category of sexual misconduct and be a more accurate representation of the names listed in the article. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
An alternative name that would be more broad, neutral and accurate would be 'Sexual misconduct allegations involving yoga gurus' 157.131.56.74 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, the name is overwhelmingly appropriate, and the fact that some people find it uncomfortable only reinforces this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The title 'Sexual abuse by yoga gurus' is misleading and inconsistent with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. It implies that all individuals mentioned in the article have committed proven acts of sexual abuse, whereas in most cases, the incidents discussed involve allegations that have not been legally substantiated. According to Wikipedia:
Sexual abuse is defined as "abusive sexual behavior by one person upon another," typically involving physical force or exploitation, often as part of a persistent pattern of assaults.
Sexual misconduct encompasses a broader range of behaviors, including "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature," and can include both non-criminal and criminal actions.
Given that only one individual (Swami Rama) has been legally convicted, the use of the term "sexual abuse" in the title gives WP:UNDUE weight to this case and does not accurately reflect the broader spectrum of behaviors described, which range from alleged impropriety to harassment to criminal assault.
A more neutral and inclusive title, such as 'Sexual misconduct allegations involving yoga gurus', better aligns with Wikipedia’s content policies and the actual scope of the article. This would help avoid implicit assertions of guilt and maintain WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliance. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The title also does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines on article naming WP:NDESC (Non Judgemental Descriptive Titles) - "articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations". 157.131.56.74 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
What exactly is your personal relationship with Satyananda or other yoga? Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Not interested in responding to the merits of the argument I see. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Entirely spurious partisan sophistry, based entirely on prejudice, it appears. Time for you to tell the truth, or as we say "Put up, or shut up". Your choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Please focus on the content as per WP:FOC: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital." 157.131.56.74 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
The problem with your lengthy assaults on this article is that they offer nothing of substance in any of the attacks; I'm not interested in your conduct, or I would have issued a formal warning on your talk page (you have indeed twice attempted to delete a chunk from the article, which is edit-warring, so a warning could well be in order: count yourself admonished – you must not attempt to force change through without consensus): the issue is that there are multiple attempts to have the article trimmed, emasculated, and in any other way shorn of its plain meaning. This is supported by literally dozens of reliable, independent witnesses who have spoken up against multiple gurus who were in positions of power over them. We could easily believe that one witness had a grudge and had made up a story of rape or other abuse; it is totally implausible that dozens of witnesses, in different countries, over many years should all have made up such stories. No, the allegations, taken as a whole, are undeniable evidence. A large number of yoga gurus have, in the words of one commentator, "feet of clay": they may look fine up above, but all is rotten down below. The article is cited to 55 reliable sources, and many of those in turn (including the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse) summarize multiple witness statements. The result is an extremely robust article. Now, why are you seeking to attack the article, the only thing you have done on Wikipedia? What is your personal interest in the matter? Don't try to hide. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
This particular section refers specifically to the naming of the article, not the Daily Telegraph article. I will respond to your comment in the relevant section above. For clarity and consistency, please keep the conversations relating to specific issues in their relevant sections. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the naming of the page issue. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I said already that the page is correctly named, indeed I formally marked it Oppose, and explained why. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
To clarify:
• You are saying that you wish to make a personal judgement on the people mentioned on the page as to their guilt - "No, the allegations, taken as a whole, are undeniable evidence". In doing so you wish to go against Wikipedia guidelines, forgo the conclusions of the judicial system, and oppose using the word 'allegations' in the title.
No, I'm not, and it's unhelpful to put words in people's mouths. Nor do I judge anybody's guilt; that's not possible without a law court. What we do here on Wikipedia is present the evidence. With the enormous number of witnesses, against a remarkably large number of gurus, it is really rather unlikely that all are innocent: "no smoke without fire", as the saying goes. But even that is not the point: the point is that there are many credible allegations of sexual abuse, so "Sexual abuse" is logically the title of the article. Choosing a wishy-washy title does not make anything clearer, quite the reverse. The article is well named, as sexual abuse is the subject; whether guru X or guru Y are guilty of it is for readers to make their minds up on, given the evidence presented, linked, and cited. We can also observe that some yoga gurus have been arrested, charged, and convicted of a range of sexual offences. Given their positions of social power, it often takes many years for these legal processes to take place, and some gurus have died before the processes have run to completion. That leaves permanently open the question of their guilt; but it makes the article's title, the subject of sexual abuse by yoga gurus, decisively the right one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Yup, according to the US legal system, John Salvi is innocent. It does not mean he wasn't a murderer, just that he died before the definitive verdict. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Correct - so what is the right approach? To say he is an alleged murderer, no? How can editors on Wikipedia make a judgement call beyond the facts - which is what is being done on this page of Sexual abuse by yoga gurus. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a court of law, we don't need a judge to decide on such things for us. We follow the sources, not court judgments. MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own guidelines around article naming WP:NDESC specifically say that "articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations" 157.131.56.74 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that there aren't yoga gurus who have committed sexual abuse.
One alternative I see would be to remove all references to gurus that have not been accused of sexual abuse. Would this be more ammenable to you?
I am curious how you could justify including somebody in this article that has never been accused of sexual abuse. I see this is a blatant disregard for the facts. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• You have not explained why 'Sexual misconduct' is not a better than 'Sexual abuse' given the wide variety of different types of impropriety conducted by the people on the page. 135.180.194.31 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
As I have not received a response, I will be escalating this issue. I will be requesting third opinions and posting this on the NPOV noticeboard. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Many religious (and business) leaders have been shown to be perpetrators of sexual abuse. The real WP:ECREE claim is that yoga gurus are immune from it. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't know who is saying that they are immune from it. History tells us they are definitely not. However because some have been shown to be perpetrators of sexual abuse, should we paint them all in the same light without discrimination? 157.131.56.74 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
No, the title does not mean that all the gurus named are guilty, or have spent time in prison, or are alive and so could be found guilty in a court. It does mean they have been involved in a public, reliably-cited, discussion of whether they did once practice sexual abuse with their followers or staff, and therefore form part of the subject of 'sexual abuse by yoga gurus'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
There are multiple yoga gurus listed on the page that have never been accused of sexual abuse, but rather been accused of the less egregious 'sexual impropriety' or 'sexual misconduct'.
To say that these people have carried out sexual abuse, is an insult to the survivors of actual sexual abuse at the hands of yoga gurus. It dilutes the strength and gravity of the term 'sexual abuse'. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
So we all agree that some of these yoga gurus have indeed carried out sexual abuse. You are mistaken in thinking that the title or the article says or implies that ALL the gurus involved have necessarily done so: it's impossible to say that, as the evidence varies in every case, from damning all the way through the spectrum to simply suggestive. What we can be sure of is that there are a lot of witnesses, presenting years' worth of personal experience and evidence, against a lot of gurus. Perhaps that mistake is central: but the article does not support it, and never has done. The article's *subject* is that kind of abuse; and it is an open and often unresolveable question how much of it each individual yoga guru has fallen into it. There is no question of insulting survivors; there are certainly thousands of yoga practitioners and yoga guru staff members among those survivors, and they have suffered varied experiences. What would be insulting would be to claim that all those yoga guru abuse survivors had invented their allegations, accusations, and detailed written evidence: they certainly have not, which is what gives this article force. That is the exact opposite of "diluting" anything. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, I wonder if you consider yourself a survivor of sexual abuse? If so, you have everyone's sympathy; but that does not mean we should not give full weight to the testimony of all the survivors and witnesses to sexual abuse by yoga gurus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Haste, and possibly temper with it, are not ideal ways to seek consensus, which is what you say you are seeking. You have received multiple thoughtful replies from different editors, and it would be wise to take account of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to by multiple - it has only been the two of us talking in this section prioer to tgeorgescu's comment. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps other editors think you are making a lot of noise about nothing, and don't want to get involved arguing with you about a perfectly good title and a well-constructed article for weeks on end. There are plenty of more pressing matters to be getting on with, both in real life and on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
The yogabasics  source says describes Desai's situation as a sexual abuse scandal, so that seems to be verified. The cited NYTimes source does not use the word "abuse", but I feel that the term abuse is an appropriate word to describe the behavior which that article describes. The editorial style of Wikipedia is often to use simple words. I recognize that there are variances and nuances to behavior, but sources use intense language to describe what is happening "biggest yoga scandal of the past decade" and sources group him with abusers. Friend is also accused of "abuse". Overall I am comfortable with Wikipedia's reflection of the sources. "Religious abuse" is not the best term to reflect the sources.  Bluerasberry (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia's own guidelines around article naming WP:NDESC specifically say that "articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations" - should the title not be modified to say 'Sexual abuse allegations against yoga gurus'? 157.131.56.74 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Also thank you for the detailed explanation, justification and clarity around the use of the word abuse. I do see your point, and can understand how Wikipedia leans into the biases of whatever sources exist, rather than making a judgement on which source is more accurate and true. 157.131.56.74 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I also wish to find the correct words. An alternative title could be, "Sexual abuse in yoga education".
Here are some wiki titles and situations which seem comparable:
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases
Category:Sexual abuse in law enforcement
Category:Sexual assault in sports
Campus sexual assault
Sexual abuse in primary and secondary schools
I was not sure what I would find when I looked at other articles, but I think the common theme with all of these is a someone in a position of authority who is abusing someone who is under their watch. These titles address the situation and environment rather than the leadership of that environment, and we could follow that approach here.  Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The addition of the term education is not appropriate, nor is it in common use in the field. The abuse spans multiple settings from ashrams and cult meetings to regular exercise sessions, so the common threads are yoga, gurus, and abuse, i.e. the title has it correctly already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The church titles do not mention priests, nor do the law enforcement titles mention police. School article titles do not mention teachers. Education might be an error, but something is different here. Perhaps "Sexual abuse in yoga"?  Bluerasberry (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought, but the article is about sexual abuse specifically by gurus, who have many times abused their positions of power to get the sex they wanted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, the school buildings, church buildings, sports equipment, and police cars were innocent also, but those other article titles sure spread the suspicion out broadly on what the source of the abuse might have been. I am not sure how those articles got titled, but I think in the absence of more information, I probably would support them all getting renamed to assign blame to the people of the institution rather than the institution itself. What you are saying makes sense here and probably generally.
I am just pausing because this decision seems to have been made in multiple comparable cases and came to a different result.  Bluerasberry (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm only concerned here with this article, which seems clearly to be correctly titled. I don't see a big issue with the others but their cases are slightly different; nobody thinks that a sport or a campus performs an assault, for one thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)