As a fellow Indian physician, as someone shaped by the spiritual traditions of our civilization, and as someone who has spent a lifetime reflecting on consciousness and moral responsibility, I am deeply grieved by the recent disclosures concerning Deepak Chopra’s communications with Jeffrey Epstein.
I am not claiming criminal knowledge, nor am I positioning myself as morally superior. I have my own imperfections and my own journey of accountability. But when one who has built a global empire on the language of spirituality appears in correspondence that reduces women to casual references as “girls,” and makes statements such as “God is a construct. Cute girls are real,” something inside me recoils. Because spirituality is sacred ground.
For those of us raised in the Indian philosophical tradition, the feminine is not decorative, not peripheral, and certainly not trivial. The feminine is divine. Our civilization does not merely tolerate women; it venerates them. The very concept of Shakti teaches us that the dynamic force of the universe is feminine. Creation itself flows through that principle.
To speak of women in a way that objectifies them, even casually, is not simply a lapse in taste. It is a rupture in alignment with the spiritual heritage one claims to represent.
Chopra’s teachings have often revolved around consciousness, higher awareness, transcendence, and the unity of all existence. He has spoken to millions about the sacredness of life and the illusion of separation. That is precisely why these reported comments are so disturbing.
When a spiritual teacher speaks, the words carry weight beyond ordinary conversation. They are not just social banter; they reflect a worldview. And when women are referenced in terms that suggest possession, aesthetic appraisal, or casual summoning, it clashes violently with the very metaphysics he has preached.
In our tradition, the phrase “Satyam Eva Jayate” means “Truth alone triumphs.” It is not merely a national motto; it is a moral imperative. Truth ultimately reveals itself, and truth demands coherence between word and deed. If the messages released are accurate, then truth requires explanation.
What did he mean? What context could possibly reconcile such statements with a lifetime of teaching spiritual reverence? Silence is not sufficient. A vague regret about tone is not sufficient. Those who claim the mantle of spiritual leadership owe clarity to the communities that elevated them.
The Bhagavad Gita teaches us that self-mastery and integrity are marks of the evolved person. One who sees the divine equally in all beings does not reduce another human being to a casual object of amusement.
The Upanishads remind us that the same consciousness dwells in every individual. To honor that consciousness is to honor the sacredness of each person, and especially those who have historically been exploited or diminished. When spiritual language is mixed with language that appears to trivialize women, it feels like a desecration of a temple.
Even our national song, “Vande Mataram,” invokes the mother as divine. We bow to the mother. We see the land as mother. We call the ultimate nurturing force of existence Ma. The feminine in Indian thought is not a metaphor for beauty alone; it is a metaphor for power, wisdom, compassion, and creation itself. When a globally recognized spiritual teacher appears to speak of women in a way that suggests objectification, it is not merely a personal misstep. It stains a sacred domain that belongs to all of us.
READ: ‘Cute girls are real’: Deepak Chopra responds after name appears in Epstein case (February 5, 2026)
At a time when Indians globally are striving to demonstrate the depth and dignity of our philosophical traditions, such episodes create resentment and confusion. Our spiritual inheritance is not a brand or a wellness franchise. It is a civilizational offering to humanity grounded in reverence. When that reverence appears compromised the injury is pervasive.
I am not interested in condemnation for its own sake. I am interested in accountability rooted in truth. If these statements are misinterpreted, then let that be explained fully and transparently. If they reflect poor judgment, then say so clearly. Spiritual authority requires moral courage, not public relations strategy. The essence of divinity is not perfection; it is alignment with truth.
What grieves me most is not the fallibility of a man. It is the possibility that the sacred language of consciousness can be casually intertwined with the objectification of the feminine. That contradiction cannot be ignored. If spirituality means anything, it must mean that every woman is to be regarded as a bearer of the divine presence, not as an accessory to power or pleasure.
Truth alone triumphs. But truth requires that we face it.
If we are to speak of consciousness, let us begin by honoring the divinity of women without qualification, without trivialization, and without excuse.