I’m Be Scofield, founder of The Guru Magazine and the journalist behind the hit HBO series on the Love Has Won cult. I’ve spent a decade reporting on spiritual power, abuse, and the machinery that protects it. My investigations have been cited by The New York Times, Rolling Stone, The Washington Post, People, VICE, Netflix, Dr. Phil, Dateline, and more. I’m the author of the new book The Savior Complex: How Jesus Became the World’s Ultimate Influencer.
A Tennessee judge has dismissed the central defamation claims in a lawsuit seeking $10 million that Sadhguru’s Isha Foundation filed against two former followers who had accused the organization and its leader of rape and sexual abuse, land grabbing, financial misconduct, and involvement in suspicious deaths.
In an order entered on Jan. 16, 2026 Judge Alexander K. McVeagh of Hamilton County Circuit Court dismissed the claims under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, the state’s anti-SLAPP law. He found that Jaikanthan Sankaradass and Neeta Jaikanthan had shown that the claims arose from their exercise of free speech on matters of public concern and that Isha had failed to meet the evidentiary burden that followed.
The organization had “woefully under-supported” its attempt to rebut the couple’s arguments and evidence, Judge McVeagh wrote. It failed to supply sufficient proof of defamation, presented no evidence that the couple had acted with actual malice, and provided insufficient evidence of damages. Isha also did not rebut most of the couple’s defenses, including their argument that many of the statements were substantially true.
The judge further questioned whether most of the statements cited in the lawsuit had been made about Isha Foundation, the corporate plaintiff, rather than about Sadhguru or other individuals associated with it. Statements concerning other people could not be used by the Foundation to recover damages, he wrote.
The ruling found that, after choosing to sue over their speech, Isha had failed to present sufficient evidence supporting the essential elements of its defamation claims.
Allegations of Rape and Sexual Misconduct
Among the statements cited in Isha’s lawsuit were Facebook posts in which Neeta referred to people associated with the organization as rapists. She also reposted Isha promotional materials that had been altered to read “Rally for Rapists.”
Her accusations were based in part on what she described as her own experience with Sadhguru.
In a sworn declaration, Neeta said that in 2012 she was taken around midnight to a private room at an Isha ashram for what she understood to be a personal spiritual process. She said she had been instructed to shower, leave her hair wet, wear a loose cloth, and undress after entering the room.
Neeta said she drank something from a copper tumbler and began to feel drugged. She recalled Sadhguru tying a red thread around her breast and hip while repeatedly telling her to say that she trusted him.
She then lost consciousness, according to her declaration. When she awoke in an adjoining room containing a bed, she said she felt that her body had been violated. She testified that she believed Sadhguru had raped her while she was unconscious.
Her account also contains details similar to allegations made by other women interviewed by Guru Magazine.
Rebecca, a former devotee, said Sadhguru asked her to remove her blouse and tie a sacred thread around her waist during what was presented as an energy transmission.
“Under the guise of it being a ‘sacred process,’ where the body is ‘simply a tool,’ I was asked to remove my blouse and given a sacred thread to tie around my waist,” she said. She said Sadhguru told her that being topless would allow her to connect with him more effectively.
Three other women alleged that Sadhguru required them to be topless during initiation ceremonies. One said he coerced her into sexual acts, including oral sex, by telling her that doing so would improve her “receptivity” and help enhance human consciousness. She described him as a “predator.”
A former senior staff member also recounted confronting Sadhguru about an allegation that he had pressured a female follower into sex.
“Samantha said you pushed her to have sex and she didn’t want to,” the former staff member recalled saying.
“What do you mean she didn’t want to?” Sadhguru replied, according to the former staff member. “They all want to.”
The former staff member also said they saw a woman wearing a string around her waist after she had been in Sadhguru’s bedroom.
The couple’s attorneys submitted additional reporting and declarations concerning sexual-abuse allegations associated with Isha, including cases involving school staff members in India and allegations examined by The Times of London.
Their lawyers also identified a notable omission in Isha’s complaint. Although the Foundation characterized one of Neeta’s statements referring to people associated with Isha as rapists as defamatory, the complaint did not expressly allege that the statement was false.
Under Tennessee’s anti-SLAPP statute, Isha was required to establish a prima facie case for every essential element of its defamation claims. Judge McVeagh found that the organization had failed to present any evidence of actual malice—the legal standard requiring proof that the defendants knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true.
Suspicious Deaths
Some of the couple’s most provocative statements concerned deaths and missing persons associated with Isha.
Isha alleged that Jai had said bodies were found at the Foundation’s facility and that the organization was “murdering people and hiding bodies.” The Foundation characterized those statements as false and damaging.
The couple responded by citing several incidents.
A body had been found on Isha’s Tennessee property. Law enforcement classified the death as a suicide, while the medical examiner listed the cause of death as undetermined. The couple’s lawyers argued that, whatever conclusions were drawn about the death, the existence of the body itself was not in dispute.
Jai also testified that his brother, Elango Sankaradass, died unexpectedly from a stroke in 2009 while participating in an Isha ritual. He was 26.
Their filings cited reports of missing people and unexplained deaths connected to Isha in India, as well as the 1997 death of Sadhguru’s wife, Vijaya Kumari.
Sadhguru has said that his wife entered mahasamadhi, a yogic form of conscious death. He burned her body within hours, before an autopsy could be performed. Her father subsequently filed a police complaint expressing suspicion about the circumstances and alleging that Sadhguru had abused her.
What Happened to Sadhguru's Wife?
Did Sadhguru's wife die from enlightenment as he claims, or was it foul play?
The couple presented these incidents to show that their concerns had not been fabricated and that they had a factual basis for raising questions about deaths and missing persons associated with Isha.
Other Claims Against Isha
The lawsuit also cited the couple’s use of the term “land grabber,” which arose from a series of property disputes near Isha’s Tennessee center.
Neeta said the Foundation pressured her to sell approximately 90 acres to Isha for $211,147.50 after she had received a private offer of $600,000. The couple also said that restrictions imposed by Isha forced them to sell a home appraised at $1.55 million for $960,000 because they were desperate to leave the community.
Isha disputed their account and accused the couple of violating contractual obligations and interfering with the foundation’s real estate interests.
The couple also accused Isha of financial impropriety, relying on offshore records, published investigations into the organization’s tax practices, and court proceedings involving its Cauvery Calling fundraising campaign.
Their allegations concerning Isha’s schools were supported, they argued, by their daughter’s account of being sexually abused by an instructor, internal communications describing severe schedules and extended periods of enforced silence, and Isha’s own published description of students’ daily routines.
Those accusations were among the statements covered by the defamation claims the judge dismissed after finding that Isha had failed to supply sufficient proof.
The order did not dispose of every claim in the lawsuit. Judge McVeagh allowed Isha’s breach-of-contract and business-interference claims to proceed, converted the couple’s motion to dismiss those claims into a motion for summary judgment, and permitted discovery. The dismissal of the defamation claims was certified as final and appealable.
Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent individuals and organizations from using costly litigation to suppress protected speech on matters of public concern when they cannot produce evidence sufficient to support their claims.
In this case, the court decided that Isha had failed to present sufficient evidence that the statements were defamatory, made with actual malice, or responsible for recoverable damages.
By filing the lawsuit, Isha also placed the former devotees’ allegations and supporting materials into a public American court record. When the organization was then required to show that the couple’s speech amounted to actionable defamation, the judge found that its case had been “woefully under-supported.”
READ THE SERIES:
Part I: Inside Sadhguru’s Cult Empire
Part II: Unmasking Sadhguru’s Legacy of Abuse
What Happened to Sadhguru’s Wife? - Did Sadhguru’s wife die from enlightenment, as he claims, or was it foul play?
Why Sadhguru Never Mentions His Yoga Teacher - Sadhguru studied with a yoga teacher for years in the 1980s, rebranded his system as his own, and never gave credit.
Every single guru is a fraud.
This pattern is as old as history…