The Silence Surrounding Deepak Chopra’s Epstein Scandal Is an Indictment of the Spiritual Industry

By failing to respond, the top leaders are risking complicity in his ethical breach

Screenshot of Document EFTA01744010 from DOJ Epstein database

If you’re not a member of Medium, you can read the article for free here.

More than nine months have passed since the first batch of emails between Deepak Chopra and Jeffrey Epstein came to light. That’s nine months of silence from figures like Marianne Williamson (who co-authored a book with him), Oprah Winfrey (who collaborated with him on a meditation program), Joe Dispenza, Jay Shetty, Eckhart Tolle, or Gabrielle Bernstein.

While some courageous and sharp pieces from Lissa Rankin, Scott Mills, Liz Bucar, and Lisa Braun Dubbels have helped bring a spotlight on this issue, Chopra’s peers, as measured by name recognition and influence, have not uttered a word publicly. (At least, none that I could find.)

Are they biding their time, hoping the scandal will simply fade from the public’s memory?

At this point, you may feel like this is old news, and the scandal no longer matters. I hope not. Chopra’s relationship with Epstein represents a serious ethical breach, as does the absence of any response from the most famous and influential spiritual teachers.

For me, the entire episode is an indictment of today’s spiritual industry — a term I use deliberately to refer to the collection of publishers, centers, and teachers in the business of selling spiritual awakening.

Here’s the ultra-short version of the scandal: Chopra had a years-long friendship with Epstein. They exchanged salacious and gossip-filled emails in which they bantered about “cute girls” and the noises they make. When the emails first came to light, Chopra claimed he had limited contact and treated him for sleep issues. When more emails came out, he issued an evasive statement saying he wasn’t involved in any criminal conduct. To date, only a few entities and publishers in the spiritual world have removed his materials from their platforms.

(If you desire to do a deeper dive, I recommend the pieces from Mills and Rankin, as well as my articles, which you can read here, here, and here.)

Becoming friends with Epstein was a serious ethical breach. The emails and texts show that Chopra dismissed allegations of sexual abuse when they surfaced in 2016 and 2019. But what makes their connection especially damaging — and not merely a case of another guru’s mask dropping — is that Chopra justified Epstein’s conduct by distorting spiritual wisdom.

In his emails and texts with Epstein, Chopra advocates for an evolved consciousness that understands reality to be an illusion and the universe a human construct. Although that theory has validity, it became grossly distorted in the context of a friendship with a sexual predator.

In 2016, James Patterson published an exposé, Filthy Rich, that documented Epstein’s 2008 plea deal for procuring and soliciting underage prostitution, with references to court documents and victim statements. Chopra dismissed it: “It will pass / Like everything else / Social constructs / There are friends who love you / Like me” (EFTA01744010).

In 2019, after new reporting from Julie K. Brown emerged, Epstein texted Chopra about his “very bad press,” who advised him to “stay silent” and “meditate” (EFTA01619641). A couple of days later, Epstein texted him a link to New York Times coverage of the recent allegations: “I am aware of the toxicity of my press” (EFTA01619643). Chopra replied: “I am not concerned about that / Let’s connect mostly by What’s App” (EFTA01619644).

You know what isn’t in their emails or texts? Any questions at all from Chopra about whether the allegations were true. No questions about why Epstein pleaded guilty if he were innocent. No concerns that the “girls” he saw in Epstein’s entourage might be victims of sexual abuse.

In their emails, Chopra writes statements like: “We are fictional characters in a collective dreamscape” (EFTA01619642); “There is no such thing as reality !” (EFTA00641324); “everyday reality is an illusion” (EFTA02659708); “Matter as such does not exist” (EFTA00631164); and “the person also is just a construct — a fictional character” (EFTA01742693).

What’s not in those messages? Any discussion of ethics, empathy, compassion, or justice.

If your version of spirituality treats reality as a “game” or a “collective dreamscape” in which sex trafficking can be “meditated” away or seen as nothing more than a “construct,” that’s a red flag your version is missing something essential.

As several commenters to my earlier piece noted, drawing from Buddhist and Vedantic philosophy, the illusion is that there is a fixed identity, a permanent self. Our perception has no fixed claim to truth. We are beings in constant flux, subject to impermanence.

That reality may be an “illusion” — that it’s a construct our minds craft from belief and experience to form our perceptions, or that reality is built out of social constructs that aren’t fundamental but can, with time and effort, be changed and transformed — doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist at all. It also doesn’t authorize you to treat people as fictional characters in a game.

Rather, the illusion dispels the belief that we are separate from each other. I am you, and you are me. We are all intimately intertwined. Our differences reflect the diversity of forms that human beings can take. We do not live in isolation from those social constructs. Beneath our differences and constructs, all of us are imbued with the same human spirit and equally part of the living fabric of the universe.

As I dispel the illusion of separation and recognize our interconnectedness — and if this is not a purely intellectual or philosophical idea — something incredible happens: My connection to you deepens, not lessens. My capacity for kindness, empathy, and compassion expands. My heart opens more easily; I wish for others to suffer less because they are me.

To recognize the “illusion” of a fixed, static world does not negate that people’s suffering — at the hands of a wealthy pedophile, for example — is real. It doesn’t invite comments like “I am not concerned about that.” To the contrary, that suffering becomes more palpable, more visceral.

Nothing of the sort appears in the messages between Chopra and Epstein.

To date, Chopra has not taken responsibility for his conduct or his deeply impoverished view of spirituality. That alone is troubling.

But the silence from his fellow figures of influence — Williamson, Dispenza, Bernstein, and Shetty, to name only a few — is a damning indictment of the industry today.

To the best of my knowledge, Williamson has spoken about Trump and the Epstein files but has not said a word about her fellow teacher and co-author. The others, as far as I am aware, have not touched on the subject in any way.

If leading spiritual teachers cannot speak directly and powerfully to this topic, their credentials are equally suspect. For it means that they’ve decided their authority and market share are worth more than the cost of speaking out. It means they’ve decided that unethical behavior and distorting dharma are part and parcel of doing business today as a spiritual teacher. It means they no longer understand the purpose of spirituality at all — not to build empires or brands, but to alleviate harm and suffering.

As Scott Mills puts it bluntly: “We are frauds if we stay silent on this.” As the months of silence continue to gather, the charges of fraud — for those leading the industry — only grow stronger.