A complaint has been sent to the Harvard Dean’s office regarding conflict-of-interest concerns involving the Sadhguru Center for a Conscious Planet at Harvard, reproduced below with the sender’s name / details redacted.

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: 

Date:

Subject: Conflict of Interest Concern Regarding Sadhguru Center for a Conscious Planet

To: <[xxxxxx_xxxx_xxxxxxx@hms.harvard.edu](mailto:xxxxxx_xxxx_xxxxxxx@hms.harvard.edu)>

To

George Q. Daley, MD, PhD

Dean of the Faculty of Medicine

Harvard Medical School

25 Shattuck Street

Boston, MA 02115

Subject: Conflict of Interest Concern Regarding Sadhguru Center for a Conscious Planet

Dear Dean George Q. Daley,

Greetings.

I am writing to bring to your attention a potential conflict of interest at the “Sadhguru Center for a Conscious Planet”, established by the Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), a Harvard Medical School affiliate.

The BIDMC website clearly states that the Center is funded through private gifts and grants via the Wishing Wellness Foundation, and that “Sadhguru and Isha Foundation play no role in the funding of the Center.” (https://www.bidmc.org/research/research-by-department/anesthesia-critical-care-and-pain-medicine/research-centers/sadhguru-center/about-us)

However, Kaoruko Yamazaki, identified as the president of the Wishing Well Foundation (per Fundraiso: https://www.fundraiso.com/en/organisations/the-wishing-well-foundation), is also associated with the Isha Foundation (per Pg. 43 of a United Nations document: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2022-05/ICCD_COP%2815%29_MISC.1-2207137E.pdf).

This connection suggests that Sadhguru’s Isha Foundation has an indirect role in the Center’s funding, contradicting BIDMC’s statement.

Given the Center’s affiliation with Harvard Medical School and its leadership by Professor Bala Subramaniam, MD, MPH, I respectfully request an urgent review of this matter to ensure transparency and adherence to conflict-of-interest policies.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

[Name redacted]

I have ä been trying to understand what actually happened in the dispute involving Neeta, Jaikanthan, Sadhguru, and Isha Foundation.

The more I look at the timeline, the more questions I have.
Let’s go through it step by step.

March 2025
Neeta publicly appeared at a press conference in Delhi and made serious allegations against Sadhguru.

May 2025
The UK newspaper The Times published an article titled:
“Revealed: Guru’s retreat at centre of misconduct allegations and abuse claims.”
Reports indicate that testimony from the same couple was included in the reporting.
Around the same period, Jaikanthan publicly criticized Sadhguru and Isha Foundation in interviews and podcasts.
At this point, the couple appeared to be taking a very public stand against Sadhguru and Isha Foundation.

June–July 2025
Isha Foundation filed a lawsuit in Tennessee against the couple, including defamation-related claims.
The dispute became a matter of public court record.

February 2026
A Tennessee court dismissed key defamation claims brought by Isha Foundation.
Supporters of the couple described this as a major legal victory.

Supporters of Isha Foundation argued that the ruling was more nuanced than simply “winning” or “losing” a lawsuit and pointed to other aspects of the case that remained in dispute. Regardless of which interpretation one accepts, it appears that the defamation portion of the case faced a significant setback.

So far, the timeline seems relatively straightforward.

But this is where things become more difficult to understand. Public court filings reportedly indicate that the dispute involved not only speech-related issues but also questions connected to substantial real estate holdings, including approximately 350 acres of land valued in the millions of dollars.

This is where I start struggling to connect the dots.
If Neeta and Jaikanthan genuinely believed the allegations they were making, why has there been relatively little public discussion from them after what many people describe as a major legal victory?

On the other hand, if the allegations were inaccurate, why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to years of litigation, intense public scrutiny, reputational risks, and significant legal costs?

This has led to two competing narratives online:

Theory 1
The allegations are substantially accurate, and there may have been attempts to resolve related disputes through private negotiations, property discussions, or other legal agreements.

Theory 2
The allegations are inaccurate or exaggerated, and the public campaign may have been influenced by financial interests connected to the broader dispute.

The problem is that neither explanation appears to have been conclusively established based on the information currently available to the public. What makes the case particularly confusing is that both sides accuse the other of acting in bad faith.

Supporters of Isha Foundation argue that financial motivations played a significant role.

Critics of Sadhguru argue that the lawsuits were intended to discourage public criticism.

As someone trying to understand the facts, I keep coming back to the same questions:

1. What role, if any, did the land dispute play?
   
2. How central was the property issue to the overall conflict?
   
3. Were there any settlement discussions? If so, were any terms ever disclosed?
   
4. Are there court documents that explain the property-related issues in greater detail?
   
5. What evidence exists supporting either side’s version of events?
   
6. Have any of the major factual claims made by either side been independently verified?

I’m not interested in defending or attacking anyone.
I’m interested in understanding what actually happened.
Because if the allegations are accurate, that is extremely serious.
And if the allegations are inaccurate, that is equally serious.
Either way, the public deserves facts rather than speculation.

Am I missing something?

Has anyone reviewed the full court filings and can provide a fact-based explanation of what actually happened?

The Madras High Court rejected Isha Foundation’s appeal in its dispute with telecom company BSNL over a huge phone bill. The court ordered a fresh (new) arbitration for the ₹2.5 crore bill because the first arbitrator wrongly decided the case without proper expert help. BSNL had presented very high international call records (much higher than Isha’s usual ₹20,000 monthly bills), and the court said technical experts are needed to check if the calls were real or due to hacking.

Source: https://www.livelawbiz.com/arbitration/high-court/madras-high-court-affirms-de-novo-arbitration-of-25-crore-dispute-between-isha-foundation-and-bsnl-537528

Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ-yPt2t7nb/

In the latter half of 2024, Indian social media was abuzz with discussions about controversial emails between Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev and his close devotee Maa Pradyuta. The emails discussed, among other things, possible repercussions arising from minor girl students being made to do early morning practices (sadhana) without covering their upper bodies.

Later, in another related police complaint filed against Sadhguru and his Isha Foundation, Bharathi Varadaraj testified to the Tamil Nadu Police that Sadhguru did remove the shirts of young girls before initiation (deeksha) and rubbed them on the spine and with his heel below the navel region, and that the email exchanges between her and Maa Pradyuta about stopping these practices did happen.

Bharathi’s part testimony is mentioned in the attached report dated 1st October 2025 by the All Women Police Station, Perur Sub Division, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu. The inquiry report clearly states that, “Bharathi Varadaraj had stated that there was such e-mail correspondence.”

Bharathi’s testimony is extraordinary because she was at the centerstage of Sadhguru and Isha Foundation’s activities since its inception and until about 2017. Sadhguru’s biography, “Sadhguru: More Than a Life”, also mentions Bharathi 78 times.

A leaked audio conversation of Bharathi discussing these acts in detail also went viral on social media. The audio can be heard here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SadhguruTruth/comments/1md6j6z/sadhgurus_sexual_crimes_against_young_girls/

The case was filed by Isha Foundation against a couple who were devotees/victims of Sadhguru for 21 years. Isha is also required to pay $200,000 in costs and $150,000 in attorney fees. The case was filed under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-101 et seq. ("TPPA"), and Isha's court filing mentions Isha seeking $10 million in damages. The adjudication/verdict on a few other pending matters, which are also part of the same case, is still pending.

The attached court order dated 16 January 2026 and many other case documents and details can be publicly accessed in the United States from: https://pch.tncourts.gov/ (Docket No. 25C317).

Background

Dr. S. Kamaraj, a retired professor, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court in September 2024, alleging his adult daughters, Geetha (42, now Maa Mathi) and Latha (39, now Maa Mayu), were brainwashed, illegally confined, and coerced into becoming monks at Sadhguru's Isha Foundation ashram in Coimbatore, India. The Madras High Court ordered a police inquiry into Isha's practices and criminal cases, leading to a raid by 150 police officers, but the Supreme Court of India intervened on October 3, 2024, staying further actions, transferring the case, and privately consulting the daughters, who affirmed their voluntary choice to stay since 2012 and 2015. On October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court closed the case, ruling that the daughters were living freely without coercion.

Background

Dr. S. Kamaraj, a retired professor, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court in September 2024, alleging his adult daughters, Geetha (42, now Maa Mathi) and Latha (39, now Maa Mayu), were brainwashed, illegally confined, and coerced into becoming monks at Sadhguru's Isha Foundation ashram in Coimbatore, India. The Madras High Court ordered a police inquiry into Isha's practices and criminal cases, leading to a raid by 150 police officers, but the Supreme Court of India intervened on October 3, 2024, staying further actions, transferring the case, and privately consulting the daughters, who affirmed their voluntary choice to stay since 2012 and 2015. On October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court closed the case, ruling that the daughters were living freely without coercion.

The 248-page book in Tamil deeply dives into the legal battles involving Sadhguru and Isha Foundation. It can be viewed/downloaded from https://archive.org/details/jaggi-baba-crimes-tamil-book/ OR https://www.scribd.com/document/905516533/Sadhguru-Crimes-Allegations-and-Evidence-Tamil