REPORT TO THE BOARDS OFTRUSTEES OF: RIGPA FELLOWSHIP UK,AND RIGPA FELLOWSHIP US
"Findings
I turn now to the specific allegations against Sogyal Lakar as set out in the Complaint, and my conclusions in respect of them. The allegations broadly fall into the following categories:
a. Physical abuse.
b. Sexual abuse.
c. Emotional and psychological abuse.
d. Living a lavish, gluttonous and sybaritic lifestyle.
e. Tainting appreciation of Dharma.
I deal with each of these in turn below, but I think it is helpful initially to reiterate that there are varying degrees of closeness to Sogyal Lakar, with the closest relationships regularly referred to as the “inner circle”. I heard a great deal of evidence about the fact that Sogyal Lakar’s inner circle includes a team of students who provide assistance and personal care to him, typically working without pay in exchange for food and board. The level of care that Sogyal requires is extreme; this is not just about people booking his travel, driving him around, delivering his bags and cooking his meals. Sogyal requires round the clock assistance from the ‘lama care’ team, which is required to meet his every need, as and when he it arises; they dress him, massage him to sleep and even attend to him in the toilet. Some members of the lama care team described having to sleep on the floor of his room, being on call through the night, and many were surviving for weeks at a time with around three hours’ sleep a night. The experiences of Sogyal Lakar’s inner circle are very different from the experiences of those who are less close. Physical abuse It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar physically abused the letter writers by slapping them, punching them, kicking them, pulling their ears, hitting them with a backscratcher, phones, cups and hangers. It is alleged that a student was knocked unconscious by Sogyal and that monks and nuns were left bloodied and scarred. It was specifically alleged that a nun was “gut punched” by Sogyal in front of hundreds of people in August 2016 at Lerab Ling. I started the investigation in the belief that it was alleged that there had been a handful of such incidents, however, I received corroborated evidence from several witnesses that people in the inner circle were beaten on a daily basis. Witness F claimed to have been beaten by Sogyal Lakar more than two hundred times. Of the twenty two witnesses whose direct evidence I received, thirteen of them confirmed that they had been hit by Sogyal Lakar (this includes people who are currently senior students of Rigpa). The witnesses gave evidence that (between them) they were aware of a further twenty people who were regularly subjected to physical abuse. Of the thirteen witnesses who said that they had been hit, the degree to which they said this happened varied considerably. By way of illustration: Witness P (Rigpa management): “He might tap someone on the head with a backscratcher; he did it half a dozen times that I saw. It was not violent … he might shake somebody … with me, he once pretended to punch me in the stomach, it was a non-event. He would kick people up the bum, very publically”. 17 Witness N (Rigpa management): “He might shake you or pull your ear or tap you with a backscratcher, this was all in the context of surprise. He never hurt me or went too far. He has punched me. It was not full force and I laughed. I did witness Sogyal punching a nun. She said it was experienced differently”. Witness O (Rigpa management): “He would occasionally [use physical force], not often. He once hit me on the knuckles with his backscratcher … I didn’t like it … but there was a context – I had made a mistake of some kind. I’ve seen him hit [students] with a backscratcher a few times – a handful - I can’t recall who, it is not a clear memory”. Witness C: “Sogyal would walk along a line of students and hit us all in the stomach. [On one occasion], he came up behind me and hit me in the back. It was no worse than a game of rugby, I wasn’t very concerned. I’m aware of others who were badly affected. At a 1992 retreat a woman was brought to the front with 300 people there and he slapped her in the face. This clearly didn’t help her. Most violence happens within the small inner circle, occasionally he would slip and do it in public. His punches were not soft, but not totally furious. He was like an enraged drunk on the street, on the edge of being out of control”. Witness L: “I was hit by Sogyal a couple of times with his backscratcher. He hit me three times and left me with a lump on my head. It was painful and was in anger. He would also kick me up the backside and slap me over the head … it was usually about food. There was one time when Witness E and I both got hit because we hadn’t put food in the car for him. He called us both in, called us idiots and hit us both. Witness J did something and Sogyal beat him a lot with the backscratcher. We [approximately 9 students] were all practising in the lounge room. Sogyal came in and was furious about something Witness J was doing. He was throwing the remote control and hitting Witness J over the head. He was furious with Witness J”. Witness L also gave evidence of witnessing physical abuse against a female student on more than one occasion because she had been “too slow to do something”. Witness J: “There was a lot of verbal and physical abuse that went on and I developed high anxiety. I slept on the floor next to the phone and would have panic attacks whenever the phone rang. Physical abuse was quite common, he would use a backscratcher to hit people over the head or hand or back. If he couldn’t reach them, he would pick something up and throw it at them e.g. a phone. In private, every day was random and you wouldn’t know what mood he was in. He could be demanding things and then hitting, throwing objects and pulling hair. He would focus on me, Witness E, Witness F, [and six other students]. 18 Mid-way through the retreat there was a major event – Buddha’s birthday. We had to practise all day and had been preparing for several days. We took everything to the house and practised together – it started around 4pm and went on until around 2am. During this, Sogyal was the most wrathful I have ever seen. Everything and everyone was annoying him. He was hitting everyone, pulling hair. Witness E and I were his main targets and he hit us repeatedly with the backscratcher and with leather bound parchments. My scalp was bleeding and my ear ringing from having been hit on the side of the head. He hit me 10 or 15 times and there was nothing soft or painless about it. It stings, it hurts, it knocks you over. If you try to move away he will call you out and make you come closer. I was in complete shock and petrified. I was in a state of anxiety – my instinct was to run but those around me were convincing me to stay. I felt I had no choice. My brain stopped working – it was damage control to try to stay alive. We were on call, day and night. We would try to pre-empt any scenario that would anger him and do anything to try to avoid irritation. I saw Witness F being beaten a lot … Witness F was regularly hit - he would use his backscratcher to hit her. … it was unnerving to watch [another student being beaten]. You would have a sense of relief that it’s not you and you would be terrified. Stepping in would make it worse for both of you”. Witness F: “On one occasion he was hitting me, [and three other students] with a broken wooden hanger. He hit each person repeatedly and was so tense that he bit through his own lip while doing it and drew blood. My initial assumption was that the blood on his face had come from one of the people he was hitting. [One student] was knocked unconscious. If one of his girlfriends was at their limit, he would hit me instead. Between 2006 and 2010 I was beaten over two hundred times; if he was in a bad mood he would beat me every day, or more than once a day. At one stage he had fallen out with [his girlfriend] – he would meet her daily at her chalet, come back to his chalet, slam the door and punch me in the guts. He was just taking out his frustrations; it was nothing to do with me. He did the same thing every day for ten days. On one occasion I asked him if he had remembered to take a calendar that he wanted to give as a gift. He responded by grabbing me by my ear - it ripped all down the back and was bleeding”. I was provided with a recording of a teaching delivered by Sogyal Lakar to Witness F. During this teaching, Sogyal can be clearly heard to state: “It’s like each time I hit you, I want you also to remember that you’re closer to me, closer to me. And the harder I hit you, the deeper the connection. And if this breaks it means that all the barriers of communication are gone. But, however, frankly speaking I don’t want to resort to that”. Witness E: “I saw him crash [two students] heads together so they both collapsed. 19 He lined [three female and three male students] up, grilling us about something, in his house. He started slapping and punching me, and kneed me in the stomach. He then grabbed a thick practice book and slammed it down on my head, breaking the spine of the book on my head. I fell to the floor … he grabbed his glass and threw its contents in my face, then grabbed a metal stupa and went to hit me in the head with it. He stopped and backed off. I thought if he hit me with that, I’m going down – I thought I might never get up. His favourite thing to hit us with was his backscratcher [which he would hit his male and female attendants with] … he would hit us four or five times on the head and he wielded it heavily – it was wooden with teeth on the end and he would hit with the teeth end. At one point, the beatings were daily; it could be several times a day. I would be left bruised and sore. He would come across as utterly ferocious and would seem to have lost control. The blows were aimed at my head and were serious, real blows. I saw Witness J start to take the flack – Witness J received gruelling, ferocious, constant beatings … it was like a mauling, slapping Witness J over and over until Witness J was reduced to a frightened jelly-like person. He would grab your ear and twist it whilst pushing your head down and dragging you along. He punched me out of the blue, a full punch to my jaw while I sat in the driver’s seat and him in the passenger seat because I forgot a torch. There was a correlation between being hit and Sogyal having fallen out with his girlfriends; out of the blue we would be screamed at for nothing. He hit me over the head and made me bleed, there were around twelve people sitting around the table when it happened”. Witness K: “He realised an offering had been removed and he got apocalyptically angry – he was screaming and shouting down the phone. It was nothing to do with me but he threw a shoe at somebody and then got out his backscratcher and hit us all on the head - he whacked all of them, and me, really hard on the head. I felt very shocked and didn’t understand. I got hit several times with the backscratcher. I saw that if you argued back or drew a boundary it got worse. He was hitting [another student] with the backscratcher and she pushed back and said it was abusive. He was berating her for calling it abuse and said she was an idiot and not a good Buddhist for calling it that. Arguing against it doesn’t help”. Witness M described a female student who “received severe beatings”. Details are set out in the confidential annexe to this report. Witness G described witnessing a female student being beaten by Sogyal with his backscratcher because a document was in the wrong font. Details are set out in the confidential annexe to this report. Witness G said “I asked her if she needed help and she said “forget it, leave it”. That bothered me; a man shouldn’t beat up a woman with a stick”. Witness G also recounted another experience, as set out below: “On another occasion, I had to leave a retreat early to get back to work. I knew he wouldn’t be happy if I left without telling him, so told [another student] that I was leaving and asked her to tell Sogyal. When I was about to leave I checked with her that she had told him and it turned out she had forgotten. We went to find him and [the other student] told him that my friend and I had to leave early. He blew up saying “what do you mean you have to leave?” He 20 went into a rage and someone in the corridor was holding a huge binder. He grabbed it and whacked us both over the head with it. In 2016, I was sitting 10 metres from the stage at the temple at the Dzogchen retreat. Sogyal came out and went to get up onto his throne – Student 19 has to bring him a stool. Student 19 put the step stool down for him. He steps up, then turns around and punches her. I heard the air explode out of her and she doubled up. I could see she was crying and she ran off stage. I thought it was totally fucked up. I was restraining myself and wanted to stand up and challenge him. The punch was the type of punch you use to get control of someone. If someone was out of control in a bar it’s what I would do to enable me to grab them and cuff them while they’re disabled. He’s a strong, stocky guy; it was akin to a one inch punch that you see in martial arts. The next day Witness P read out a letter from Student 19 which said ‘it’s all OK, just part of my training – sometimes I don’t pay enough attention’.” Several of the other witnesses I spoke to were present when Student 19 was punched in the stomach by Sogyal at Lerab Ling in August 2016, in front of several hundred people. Witness H corroborated the account of Witness G above, telling me that: “[Sogyal] quickly, aggressively and forcefully hit her in the stomach. I was close enough to hear the exhalation. She doubled up, burst into tears and disappeared for several hours … when she reappeared she had reddened eyes, a facial expression of defeat and upset, a downturned mouth and a slumped body. The next day she appeared on the stage and had to confess her own failings and agree that this had been highly beneficial and privileged event … she had the appearance of a prisoner of war stating how well the North Koreans had treated her”. I have seen a statement issued by Student 19 since the incident in the temple has come to prominence in which she says: “The day of the incident, the 25th of August, there was a smaller mishap, but [Sogyal] Rinpoche was definitely not in a fit rage [sic], there was just a single moment of wrath, which manifested in a soft punch, but it was neither violent or abusive, at least not to my feelings. Even though I was in tears and crying afterward and the situation easily could have appeared and seen as me being punched very hard, the fact is that I cried because of a complete different reason, which had nothing to do with the actual situation. The incident just sparked open an inflammation of a mental wound I was in the middle of experiencing”. The language used by Student 19 is strikingly similar to that used by the current senior students who confirmed that when they had been hit by Sogyal this had been a “soft punch”, not something that caused them real pain. It gives me the impression that this is the ‘party line’ on the issue; the striking of people cannot plausibly be denied, but its significance can be minimised. On hearing these accounts, I wanted to understand why people had ‘allowed’ themselves to be hit; why hadn’t they complained, why hadn’t they hit him back? This was explained to me as follows: Witness G told me that it was “a source of eternal shame” that Witness G had not spoken up when Student 19 was punched. Witness G told me “I sat in abject denial of what my eyes were seeing; the whole room did … we were conditioned to belonging for so long that there was not a peep of protest. Even more disturbing is that over the course of the next two days we were excoriated [by Sogyal and Witness P] for even thinking something had happened … we were a brainwashed group, myself included” 21 Witness E told me that he understood that a teacher slapping you is a training; as a student Witness E believed that you should see it as pure, carry on and not react. Witness E said that, “as a newcomer, you look around you at the other senior students who it happens to and they don’t react, so you think that it must be doing some good as they tolerate it without complaint, and the students would even tell you that it is a training and is helping them in their practice”. Witness E said that “you kind of let go of your common sense when it comes to boundaries and you’re prepared to believe it might wake you up faster”. Witness F made similar comments and explained that Sogyal would start by hitting you once, to see how you would react. Witness F said that “if you took it, he would then continue, gradually building up the severity”. Witness I (who alleges both sexual and physical abuse) spoke about the need to adopt a coping mechanism where she would close her mind to what was going on and pretend it did not exist. Witness I spoke of feeling ashamed and unable to tell anyone about it. Witness J said “your mind leaves your body, it’s a skill to protect yourself. [The abuse] has a numbing effect”. Witness I believed that Sogyal likes to be surrounded by people who had experienced trauma, abuse or neglect, and felt that he was easily able to identify such people. Witness J explained how being involved with Rigpa left Witness J disconnected from friends and family in the outside world and that the thought of leaving is very difficult because it means leaving the whole “Rigpa family” behind too, Witness J said “I didn’t have the strength to walk away”. Various witnesses talked to me about not being ready to turn their back on something that they had been so devoted to for so many years, and not being ready to accept that it was not what they thought and hoped it was. Witness K said that you start off being told by everyone around you that you are lucky to be singled out by Sogyal for special attention; you feel special because of this. Witness K said that she had witnessed other people push back or try to draw a boundary and things got worse. This had been Witness J’s experience too. Witness K said she was told by another student to look at how well the people around Sogyal were doing and trust his process. Witness K said she was told that it is not an easy path, but it is the quick path to enlightenment. Witness K acknowledges that, technically, it was possible to leave, but doing so would have damaged the relationship between Witness K and a close family member, who was a committed member of Rigpa, and Witness K felt she had nowhere else to go. In his letter to me, Sogyal Lakar says: “It is clear that a number of people feel that they have been hurt, and hold me responsible. That is something I have to acknowledge and face up to. I am truly sorry if anything that I have said or done has caused anyone offence or harm and I ask in all humility for their forgiveness. At the same time from my side I find it very hard to recognize myself in the descriptions in the letter, and the picture that it paints. It distresses me that my actions and intentions could have been misunderstood and characterized in this way. I am a human being doing my best to follow the Buddha’s teaching and I have never knowingly set out to harm anyone, which would be against the most fundamental precept that I follow, as a Buddhist. Nonetheless I would be the first to acknowledge that I have faults, and I am always striving to work on myself, to become a better and more compassionate person. That’s why it is so troubling that anyone could be left with the impression that I am acting merely out of impatience, irritation or anger”. 22 Findings: physical abuse Based on the evidence that I have heard, a number of witnesses gave credible evidence about physical abuse that they have personally suffered and witnessed. Several of the accounts were corroborated by other witnesses, and where there is a lack of corroborative evidence, the facts complained of are very similar, even from witnesses who were at Rigpa at very different points in time and locations in the world. On the balance of probabilities, I conclude that Sogyal Lakar has subjected a number of his closest attendants to repeated physical violence by assaulting them with his own hands, his backscratcher or with items that he could throw or hit them with. Whilst some of the physical abuse might be described as being part of a teaching, it is clear that on many occasions the reason for the violence was Sogyal’s own frustrations – for example, he would hit attendants for no particular reason following an argument with one of his girlfriends. I have heard compelling evidence that he effectively used several of his attendants as a punching bag to vent his own frustrations and anger. It is also clear to me that, on the balance of probabilities, even if Sogyal’s violence towards his students was intended to help them on the path to enlightenment, the physical abuse caused real harm. I heard evidence of an individual being knocked unconscious, several people were left with bleeding wounds and one received a concussion which lasted for days. 23 Sexual abuse It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar: a. Used his role to gain access to young women and to coerce, intimidate and manipulate them into giving him sexual favours and has had decades of sexual relationships with students, including underage girls. b. Instructed students to strip, show him their genitals, take photos of their genitals and show them to him, give him oral sex, have sex with their partners in his bed and describe sexual relationships to him, as well as lying to cover up relationships with him. c. Groped students and asked one of his students to photograph attendants and girlfriends naked, forcing others to make collages of the images for him which were then shown to others. d. Offered a female attendant to another lama for sex. These allegations are dealt with below. Allegations with no supporting evidence / insufficient evidence In relation to some of these allegations, I did not receive any evidence to support them and therefore cannot uphold them. Specifically, nobody gave evidence to me that they had been required to take photos of their own genitals and show them to Sogyal. I heard some evidence in relation to relationships with girls under the age of 16, but I do not consider there to be sufficient proof of such relationships on the basis of the evidence provided to me. I do not therefore uphold this allegation. No witness gave evidence to me that they had been asked to have sex with their partner in Sogyal’s bed. One witness spoke of being invited to use a room in Sogyal’s chalet to have ‘make-up sex’. There was no suggestion that this was forced upon the couple, albeit that there is a general theme from all witnesses that they could not say no to Sogyal. I cannot therefore uphold this allegation. I did, however, receive a significant volume of evidence in support of the other allegations, which I deal with below. Allegation that Sogyal Lakar used his role to gain access to young women and to coerce, intimidate and manipulate them into giving him sexual favours and has had decades of sexual relationships with students, including underage girls Sogyal Lakar is open about the fact that he has sexual relationships; he is not a monk and is not required to remain celibate. He is known to have often had girlfriends who are significantly younger than him and to have had more than one girlfriend at the same time. There is nothing wrong with this, if they are consenting adults. Sogyal Lakar is also known for being attended to by a number of beautiful young women, who form a significant part of the lama care team. Again, on the surface there is nothing wrong with this, however, several witnesses shared their experiences of this role with me and their evidence was very troubling. I am particularly concerned about the vulnerability of the individuals who gave evidence that they were called upon to provide sexual favours to Sogyal Lakar and the apparent abuse of Sogyal’s power over them. It was again striking how many similar accounts were provided by different witnesses spanning a considerable time period – it supports a conclusion that Sogyal Lakar has a particular modus operandi when it comes to securing sexual relationships with his students; particularly young women. 24 First-hand accounts Witness K shared the following information with me: “When I was 18 or 19, he asked me to come and meet him at his personal shrine in his house. He said he had had a dream about me and it would be good if I worked for him as an attendant. He asked if I wanted to and I said yes. I understood it would be like a PA but the uber rich version, bringing him anything and everything he might need including food, laundry, cleaning and carrying his bags. He said it’s really important that you never talk to anyone about anything that goes on while you’re working, especially don’t tell [a family member also in Rigpa] as it will damage [that person’s] view and relationship with the dharma. I said OK. I didn’t expect this to mean there would be anything awful, but I understood I would have information about what he spent his money on and what he did which he would want to keep private. I was very young and emotionally vulnerable; he knew this. One day he showed me some sexy photos of [another student] on the beach to see if I was shocked. I wasn’t. Within three months of me arriving, I was helping him one evening to get ready for bed with [another student]. I had to bring his hot water. He suddenly asked me to lick and touch his genitals. He said it in a jovial way and I wasn’t sure if he was serious. [The other student] smiled and said “yes, do it”. I tried but I freaked out and he said “oh, that’s OK” and he dismissed me. The next day I felt very uncomfortable and said I was not well and stayed in bed. A couple of hours later I was called and told he wanted to see me in the garden straight away. I went to the garden reluctantly and he started screaming abuse at me, saying “you think I’m attracted to you, why would I be?” He was aggressive and it was terrifying, I was not used to being yelled at. I started to cry and felt panicked. I said I didn’t think that, but felt bad because I had failed him and his test. He immediately turned nice and said “oh no, you did well”. I felt shaken and was not OK with it. I had no one to talk to. I then went to [another country] with him [as part of the lama care team] and I was leaning over to give him something. He put his hand down my top and touched me. He said my nipples were young. I felt shocked. [Some time later], I attended a retreat and was feeling better and more on track. I was alone with him in the shrine room and he asked me to give him a blow job. I tried to be a good Buddhist and see it as a teaching. It was an out of body experience. I didn’t want to do it but I did. I didn’t do it for long and he then dismissed me. It felt like a power play, he didn’t seem particularly aroused”. Witness L recounted the following experience which took place when Witness L was aged around twenty: “Sogyal asked me to take my clothes off. It was just before he was about to teach and I had been ironing his clothes in the lounge area of his hotel room. He was on the bed in his underwear and called me into his bedroom. I laughed and made a joke about not wearing nice underwear. I think my reaction made clear that I wasn’t going to do it. I felt shocked, nervous and vulnerable. He dismissed me and I went back to ironing his robe, my heart was pounding and I wanted to run”. Witness I also reported first-hand experience of this, which is set out in the confidential annexe. Witness A was a former girlfriend of Sogyal, who confirmed that she had been in a consensual sexual relationship with him. She gave evidence, however, that on one occasion she had experienced a non-consensual sexual act by Sogyal. Details of this are set out in the confidential annexe. 25 The Rigpa management witnesses, Witness N, Witness O and Witness P accepted that Sogyal had girlfriends, and sometimes more than one at a time, but all considered these relationships to be consensual and denied ever seeing or having knowledge of him behaving inappropriately, or using the teachings to persuade people to have sex with him. Very significantly, however, Witness P had witnessed a female student, being instructed to take her clothes off by Sogyal Lakar. Witness P stated that the response of the student was to burst into tears but not to comply with the request. Witness P says that Sogyal Lakar did not press the issue and changed the subject. Witness P was not concerned by this instruction and considered it to be an example of Sogyal Lakar having an agreement with the female student to “intervene in [her] thought pattern by saying this”. Rigpa management Witness N had also witnessed Sogyal telling a female student to strip and reported that she then removed one item of clothing. Further evidence – second hand accounts I also received further, second hand accounts of similar, inappropriate sexual behaviour by Sogyal Lakar from Witnesses B, C, E, M and S, the details of which are set out in the confidential annexe because they relate to people who have not consented to that information being included in this report. Because I did not speak to the alleged victims first-hand, these accounts necessarily must carry less weight in my assessment of the evidence than the first-hand accounts that I have referred to above. For the avoidance of doubt, I would have upheld the allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour without these additional accounts, but they add further credibility to the accounts that I have heard and reflect the potential that there are further victims who have not yet come forward. Consent A number of individuals with whom I spoke told me that they did not want to participate in sexual activities with Sogyal and were not, therefore, consenting adults. I have given careful consideration to the question of whether, despite this evidence, Sogyal Lakar could reasonably have believed that they were participating as consenting adults. It is apparent that some of the witnesses who gave evidence of performing sexual favours, or being intimately touched by Sogyal against their will did not expressly say no to him; quite often the evidence is that they complied with a request or a demand from him without outward complaint but because they felt they had to. Some of the witnesses who spoke to me talked about that fact that when Sogyal first started to show them attention (although not sexual attention) they saw this as a blessing and a positive thing for their development as a Buddhist. Witness K, for example, spoke about initially feeling special to be singled out to work for him. According to the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service, under the UK’s sexual offences legislation consent is only given when someone agrees by choice to participate in the activity and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The word consent should be given its ordinary meaning, but there is a difference between consent and submission. Consent is required for each and every sexual interaction; consent can be freely given for one interaction and not given for the next. Some witnesses spoke about the apparent promiscuity or sexual openness of some of the alleged sexual partners of Sogyal, in particular the Rigpa management witnesses all made this point about one of the students. Witness O provided evidence to support this assertion in the form of a video of this student speaking openly about matters of a sexual nature. The Rigpa management witnesses all suggested that this student had been a willing sexual partner / girlfriend of Sogyal and that she had, in fact, “seduced” Sogyal. 26 There is no suggestion, however, that Witness L was a willing sexual partner of Sogyal Lakar. In his letter to me, Sogyal Lakar makes no express mention of his sexual relationships with his students; he makes more general statements about never having any intention to exploit or take advantage of students: “My abiding aim in life has been to transmit the Buddhist teachings as fully and completely as I can, to benefit as many people as possible. I cannot say I am entirely selfless, and I have no wish to exaggerate, but the way in which my character has been portrayed – as selfinterested and pleasure seeking – is far from the truth. The welfare of my students has always been paramount in my mind. My intention towards them has always been characterized by compassion and by love. I have always sought to ensure that they make a deep connection with the core of the teachings, and come to a personal understanding… It has never been my intention to exploit or take advantage of students. I respect them deeply and have only sought to benefit them. Whatever I have said or done when interacting with my students has been with the aim of helping them to awaken their true inner nature. Nonetheless I see this intention has been misunderstood and my action have been judged otherwise. For some, this way of training may not have had the desired outcome. I must accept my own responsibility in this, and apologize to anyone who feels this way”. Sogyal’s statement - “whatever I have said or done when interacting with my students has been with the aim of helping them to awaken their inner nature” - causes me concern if and to the extent that it relates to sexual relationships. He is not saying, I thought that these were ‘normal’ consenting adult relationships. A sexual relationship which is designed to help awaken the inner nature of a student is, necessarily, a sexual relationship between a student and a teacher; it is not a relationship between equals. In that context, if such a relationship can ever be consensual (which is a controversial question in itself), I consider that the requirement for clear and unequivocal consent is paramount. That point is made even starker in a situation where the student considers that she is not permitted to speak out against her teacher and has been taught to see everything their teacher does as enlightened behaviour. Findings: abusing young women It is alleged that Sogyal used his position to coerce, intimidate and manipulate young women into giving him sexual favours. There is a significant weight of first-hand evidence which leads me to uphold this allegation. By way of illustration, Witness K, referred to above, who became upset when asked to strip gave evidence to me that she had first been sworn to secrecy with a threat to her karma and that of her family in the event that she broke this promise. This promise was extracted from her within a week of first coming to work as a helper in the lama kitchen as a teenager, having come to a retreat by way of respite from a period of depression and self-harm. Having broken down and refused to strip, she alleges that she was subjected to aggression and anger and she says she was also hit with a backscratcher. On the balance of probabilities, I do not believe that Witness K freely participated in sexual activity with Sogyal Lakar. These interactions were against her will and took place after Sogyal had shouted at her after she had first said no to him. She was vulnerable and not in a position to refuse him: in my view she submitted; she did not consent. I also conclude that Sogyal Lakar attempted to use his position of authority to obtain sexual favours from Witness L and I am seriously concerned about the ability of Student 15 to provide consent freely against the backdrop of physical abuse alleged to be directed towards her which is outlined in the confidential annexe. 27 Whilst one of the witnesses may initially have enjoyed Sogyal’s attentions, and may even have been flirtatious with him, I do not accept that she consented to the sexual relationship that developed and the use of threats of Samaya breakage and bad karma towards her demonstrate that the relationship arose out of an abuse of power. I am unable to make a clear finding in relation to the experiences of Witness A; this allegation arises out of a different sort of relationship (Witness A describes herself as a former-girlfriend of Sogyal). There is simply not enough direct or corroboratory evidence to enable me to uphold this allegation. I do not believe that Sogyal Lakar could reasonably have believed that Witness K, Witness L or Witness I consented freely to his actions. When a significantly older man, who is responsible for a student’s spiritual development, and who uses physical force against that student, tells that student to perform sexual favours for him, I cannot accept that there is any basis upon which this could be said to be a consensual act. I should make clear that I do not conclude that all of the sexual partners of Sogyal are the victims of sexual abuse. There are some individuals who appear to be treated quite differently, are looked after by Sogyal and consider themselves to be his girlfriends. I spoke to one such individual who had a relationship with him in the 1970s and said he was a “loving and gentle man”. I do not think that the same can be said when it comes to the vulnerable people working in the lama care team, who are required to attend to Sogyal’s every need around the clock. It is entirely possible that Sogyal has allowed himself to believe that these women choose to be his sexual partners but I cannot accept that there is any legitimate basis for that conclusion on the evidence I have heard. Requiring students to lie to cover up relationships with him Witness E told me that Sogyal Lakar would often be having a relationship with five or six women at a time. Witness E would, for example, be expected to drive Sogyal to a hotel where one female student was waiting for him in the hotel room. Witness E would then be instructed by Sogyal not to tell another student, who was known to be his girlfriend. Witness E explained that a number of Sogyal’s sexual partners were based in the same city and there would be times when one girlfriend was visiting Sogyal via one staircase as Witness E was escorting another girlfriend out of the building, via another exit. Witness E accepted that most of the girlfriends knew about each other and would discuss it amongst themselves. This does not, therefore, appear to be wrongful behaviour on Sogyal’s part per se, aside from expecting a Rigpa volunteer to give up time to facilitate his exclusively personal arrangements. Whilst I accept the evidence of Witness E, I cannot uphold this allegation as an act of abuse or similar wrongdoing on the part of Sogyal Lakar. Groping students, photographing attendants and girlfriends naked, and forcing others to make collages of the images Witness G alleges that, on one occasion, Sogyal walked up to him in front of eight or nine of his attendants and grabbed Witness G by the testicles; it is alleged that Sogyal squeezed Witness G’s testicles and made a lewd comment about whether or not Witness G was aroused. Witness G says he tried to laugh this off, but felt violated by this act and continues to look back on this as a “damaging and traumatic event” and a moment of “abject humiliation”. Witness G believes that this was an assertion of authority on Sogyal’s part, as opposed to being sexually motivated. Witness G spoke of Sogyal being very concerned about the size of other men’s penises, and how his own compared. Witness E made similar comments, and told me that Sogyal would often ask male students to show him their penises. As set out above, Witness K also gave evidence of Sogyal groping her. 28 On the balance of probabilities, I conclude that Sogyal Lakar did grope Witness G and Witness K against their wishes; whether this was sexually motivated or a display of power does not, in my view, make a difference as to the harm done to the students in question. It is alleged that Sogyal required one of his students to photograph attendants and girlfriends naked, forcing others to make collages of the images for him which were then shown to others. Several witnesses confirmed to me that they understood that a student who was a photographer was required to take naked photographs of Sogyal’s girlfriends and attendants. Witness L gave evidence of an occasion when four female students were called upstairs, and Witness E was then asked to go upstairs to take photos in Sogyal’s personal shrine room. Witness L said “I went upstairs a day or two later and saw photos of them all posing naked in the shrine room. I felt shocked to see it”. . Witness G also saw intimate sexual photographs of Student 3 in Sogyal’s possession and alleges that he saw Sogyal share these with another lama. I have been provided with evidence (which is addressed in the confidential annexe) which confirms the existence of these photographs. I have also been provided with evidence (which is addressed in the confidential annexe) which confirms the existence of some of the video footage that Witness E says he was asked to film or was given by Sogyal to edit. This includes a video of two young female attendants who are asked by Sogyal to dance for him. One starts dancing in a bikini until he simply tells to her: “take it off”. She complies with the instruction. In my opinion, the student who is dancing looks uncomfortable and awkward. I was told that this footage was filmed by Witness E, at Sogyal’s request. Another of the videos includes a student being told by Sogyal that she can stop what she is doing when she wants to, but when she immediately asks to stop she is told by Sogyal to repeat what she was doing “one more time”. Multiple witnesses confirmed seeing naked pictures of “Sogyal’s girls” in his accommodation and to there being huge blown up collages with naked images of one of his girlfriends in his private rooms, to which only the inner circle were granted access. Witness E, who took many of the photographs, explained that Sogyal would ask him to crop and enlarge the images that he would take so as to focus only on the genitals of the women in the photographs. I am satisfied that Witness E, in particular, was asked to photograph attendants and girlfriends naked. Whether there is anything wrong in this conduct depends primarily on whether the photographs or videos were taken of people who did not consent to them being taken or shared in the way that they were. I have not spoken to any of the women in the photographs so cannot determine whether they were consented to this on the evidence available to me. This could be investigated further if they women in the photographs were willing to provide evidence in future. I have not heard direct evidence of anyone being “forced” to make collages of the images for Sogyal, as is alleged, but there is evidence to support at least one student being asked to do so. There is also a significant volume of evidence to support the conclusion that saying no to Sogyal Lakar was not easy to do. Witness E, however, confirmed that taking the photographs was not the problem in itself, it was more about the relationships Sogyal was having with these women that was the cause for concern for this witness. Offering attendants to other lamas It is alleged that Sogyal offered one of his female attendants to another lama for sex. I heard evidence that this happened on more than one occasion. 29 Witness E told me that he had heard Sogyal Lakar on the telephone to another guru on two occasions and that during the phone calls Sogyal ‘offered’ a student to the guru. This account is dealt with in the confidential annexe. I was not able to corroborate this account independently; however, another witness spoke of a similar experience, as set out below. Witness K “Another lama was visiting and Sogyal made comments in front of others asking me if I would sleep with the lama. I thought he was joking and trying to get a rise out of me. I jokingly replied “yes, of course” and Sogyal then said “good you can be his attendant” he also told me to go and buy condoms. … On the second day of attending the lama, he led me to a bedroom and started kissing me. I suddenly realised it was not a joke and I froze. The other lama realised I was not consenting and stopped. He asked if I was OK and let me go back to the house. I realised I was in over my head and locked myself in a bathroom and broke down. I didn’t have anywhere else to go – I was 20, had nowhere else to live, no money and no food. I was very scared. There was no way out but I felt very unsafe. Someone found me and I was crying hysterically. I had to meet with Sogyal and the other lama; Sogyal said he was sorry as he thought that [offering me to the other lama] would be good for me. Witness E then took me to a bus stop and put me on a bus to [the city], even though I had nowhere to go when I got there. No one contacted me or checked I was safe”. Another witness provided a similar account to me, but did not wish for details to be included in this report. Based on the evidence available to me, on the balance of probabilities, I uphold this allegation. Emotional and psychological abuse As set out in the section above entitled “Sogyal Lakar’s teachings”, I consider that there are aspects of Sogyal’s teachings which are designed to push a student’s buttons psychologically. In his letter to me, Sogyal Lakar states: “I believe it is common in many traditional cultures and disciplines – such as education, art and sport – that the teacher encourages the student to go beyond his or her limits and sometimes this kind of training can be confronting. It is in this spirit that at times I have tried to train my own students, especially when I see great potential in them. I believe this is very much in keeping with the culture of training that we find in Tibetan Buddhism. I have never had the feeling that I was obliging someone to do something that was against his or her own will, and that was not aligned to their inner development”. It is alleged, however, that Sogyal’s techniques went beyond legitimate teaching and crossed the line into emotional and psychological abuse. Some specific examples of this allegation were included in the Complaint. These examples were: a. Comments about Ian Maxwell b. Telling people their loved ones would be at risk / died because they displeased Sogyal c. Pushing students to the verge of emotional breakdown d. Use of Rigpa therapy 30 I deal with these in turn below. Ian Maxwell comments It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar referred to a senior student, Ian Maxwell, as an “asshole” during a live streamed teaching from the unfinished temple at a time when Ian Maxwell was dying in hospital. I have been able to obtain a copy of the December 2015 live teaching in a temple during which Sogyal Lakar spoke about Ian Maxwell, who was terminally ill at the time. Sogyal does refer to Ian Maxwell as “a bit of a stubborn asshole” in this teaching and says “so I kick his arse”, but in my view this comment appears to be to be an attempt at a comic aside in the middle of a longer commentary which talks about the positive impact that Ian has made, how “crucial” he has been and asking everyone to “think of him very strongly”. Rigpa management Witness P acknowledged that these comments had been made but felt that they were taken out of context. Witness P said “I was shocked when I heard it, but he was doing it to wake people up again”. It is also alleged that, after Ian Maxwell died, Sogyal Lakar told students that Ian had “died spitting up blood” because he had defied Sogyal in the past, and that Sogyal would ask students “do you want to die spitting up blood like Ian for defying me?” Witness E confirmed that these comments were made in his presence and he understood this to be a reference to Ian Maxwell and Sogyal not seeing eye-to-eye in relation to the cultural side of Tibetan Buddhism. Witness E said that Ian Maxwell just wanted to benefit from the teachings and did not want to deal with the rest of Sogyal’s behaviour. Rigpa management Witness N was not aware of the specific comments alleged to have been made about Ian Maxwell but confirmed that there was some tension in the relationship between Ian and Sogyal. Witness N also confirmed that Sogyal would say deliberately provocative things at times. On balance, I accept that these comments about Ian Maxwell were made, but the comments made in the temple appear to have a context which makes them less shocking. The comments made about dying spitting up blood being the fate of people who do not follow Sogyal are distasteful and add to the overall concerns that I have of people being put under great pressure not to question Sogyal’s actions. However, I do not believe that these comments can, on their own, be described as emotional or psychological abuse. Telling people their loved ones would be at risk / died because they displeased Sogyal The Complaint refers (at footnote 3) to one of the letter writers being told that his partner got sick because the letter writer had shouted at him. I understand that this was during a telephone conversation between only the letter writer and Sogyal Lakar. This complaint is consistent with evidence received from Witness K and Witness I that they were told that there would be negative karmic consequences for them and their family members if they spoke about their dealings with Sogyal. Witness P commented that Sogyal had devoted a lot of time to the letter writer and his partner during her illness, that he would pray for her and showed incredible kindness to them. Witness P confirmed that Sogyal: “… probably did say these things – it was all about disturbing thoughts, provocation, startling things that woke people up. It’s easy to get the wrong perception”. However, I do not believe that I have sufficient evidence to uphold the specific complaint about the comments Sogyal is alleged to have made about the letter writer’s partner. 31 Pushing students to the verge of emotional breakdown A number of the witnesses that I spoke to gave evidence of the serious impact of their involvement with Sogyal Lakar on their health. In addition to numerous examples of witnesses working very long hours, with little sleep, for long periods of time, the following specific examples of long-term harm being caused were given to me: a. Witness F gave evidence of being forced to undergo elocution lessons because Sogyal would refuse to understand anything said by Witness F, insisting that Witness F must speak in a received pronunciation, English accent. Witness F says that this went on for months and months and meant that “my tongue was taken away from me” and that “it was like being gagged”. Witness F felt that this was an effort to break Witness F’s attachment to Witness F’s own country and family. Witness F reports being left with chronic fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. b. Witness K reported that she suffered from hallucinations and suicidal thoughts and still suffers from chronic insomnia and anxiety. Witness K says she has spent thousands on therapy since leaving Rigpa. c. Witness J reported having suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and extreme anxiety. Witness J described being terrified of the phone ringing and explained how this anxiety had negatively affected Witness J’s relationships. Witness J felt able to start therapy after several years of processing what had happened and the therapy is ongoing. I was informed that there are a number of other students who suffered breakdowns as a result of their involvement with Rigpa. I was not able to corroborate this information with those individuals. Overall, based on the information available to me, I conclude that Sogyal did indeed push some of his students to the verge of emotional breakdowns. Use of Rigpa therapy It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar introduced ‘Rigpa therapy’ for his closest students and that trained therapists were “given the task of dealing with the pain that was being stirred up in the minds of those [he] was abusing”. It is alleged that therapists were used to ensure that the students did not see Sogyal as an abuser, but instead blamed old family relationships. Witness N accepted that there was a period when four or five students, who were also therapists, were looking at how modern therapy techniques could have confluence with Buddhism. Witness N stated that one of these therapists also saw some students privately, but that this was not a Rigpa offering. Witness P also told me that there was a therapist (Student 20) who would see people, but described this was an individual thing and not arranged by the organisation. Witness P said that people would choose to see Student 20 and it was private and confidential, there was no official organised therapy. Witness O agreed that there had been some work done by a group of therapists to see if they could develop a Buddhist inspired therapy technique, but that this had not been able to make much progress. Witness O confirmed that there was some completely informal therapy with a therapist (Student 20) who would informally support students with any problems during the three-year retreat. Witness O stated that this would be confidential and Witness O’s sense was that the therapy was used to get to the bottom of what the cause of any problems might be. Witness K told me that she was “assigned” to Student 20 for therapy. Witness K said that this was not a great experience. Witness K says that Student 20 “made it all about your relationship with your parents”. Witness K says that Student 20 was caring but she felt that the key message was that 32 Witness K should keep Sogyal’s behaviour under wraps and not make a scene. At one point, Witness K says she was told to see Student 20 for therapy twice a week. Witness K says it was a relief to be able to speak to someone, so Witness K did not say no. Witness K continued seeing Student 20 for therapy via Skype for some years but now sees this as a means of keeping Witness K tied up in the Rigpa way of resolving these issues instead of going to the police. Witness F describes Rigpa therapy as a strategy of psychological abuse, saying that Student 20’s job was to mop up the mess created by Sogyal, which enabled him to push them all further and Student 20 would catch them. Witness F agrees with the account of Witnesses N, O and P as to how the therapy discussions started, but says that the idea of one-on-one therapy with Student 20 came from Sogyal himself. Witness F was “sent” for Rigpa therapy around the time that Witness F started to develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Witness F says that the idea of the therapy seemed good at the time. Witness F described the therapy as a chance to relax and not be on-call for an hour. Witness F says that during the therapy, Student 20 was told by Witness F about the beatings and other concerns. Witness F says that Student 20’s focus was that the behaviour of Sogyal was purifying Witness F’s relationship with Witness F’s father. Witness F describes this therapy as their one chance of finding help, and that it was abused. Witness F alleges that Student 20 once told Witness F “the things these girls tell me – if they happened in the real world I’d have to report them”. I have heard a recorded public teaching in which Sogyal asks for Student 20 to share something that has come out of Witness F’s therapy sessions. Student 20 then shares information coming from those therapy sessions with Sogyal and the rest of those present. This is clear evidence of the misuse of these therapy sessions and the confidential information shared therein. Witness L confirmed that she was aware that Witness F and a number of the young women in the lama care team were seeing Student 20 for therapy. Witness L alleges that those undergoing therapy reported back that Student 20 would persuade them to blame their families, or their karma from past lives, instead of holding Sogyal responsible for his actions towards them. I must make clear that I have not received any testimony from Student 20. There is, however, a significant volume of evidence to support the allegation that (whatever Student 20’s intentions were) the therapy sessions held by Student 20 were encouraged or sanctioned by Sogyal Lakar and caused harm to those who participated in them. On the balance of probabilities, I uphold the allegation that therapy sessions were improperly used. Lavish, gluttonous and sybaritic lifestyle It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar demands money from his students to fund his lifestyle, which involves a steady supply of sensual pleasures: personal chefs, entertainment, cigars, drivers, masseuses, and expensive restaurants. It is alleged that he demands free labour. It is apparent that Sogyal has a taste for the finer things; he does indeed have a staff available to him around the clock, including masseuses, drivers and chefs. Many of these people, however, appear to donate their time, without charge, as part of a personal offering, or people worked in exchange for free accommodation and food on retreat. Some witnesses explained that there is an expectation within Tibetan Buddhism that a high lama would have these things. Whilst it was understood that some lamas would reject such trappings and live a simple life, it was acknowledged that Sogyal is not one of them. He was described as being from an old school, aristocratic family with certain expectations. Several witnesses spoke about Sogyal having very specific, and expensive, taste when it came to meals that were cooked for him and restaurants that were frequented. It was accepted by Rigpa management Witness N that the cost of such hospitality would be met by the local Rigpa group, not 33 by Sogyal personally. It is not clear to me the extent to which these costs were met by the Rigpa entities or by individual students within the local sangha; it appears that there was a mixture of both. Several witnesses described the fact that at the end of a retreat, students are invited to give a financial offering to Sogyal Lakar. The offerings were encouraged through a speech known as the ‘offering pitch’ in which a senior student or monastic would explain that the money people had already paid was to pay for the infrastructure of the retreat, accommodation and food. It was explained that Sogyal did not personally receive any of this money and that there was now an opportunity to express gratitude to him for the teachings and to ‘accumulate merit’. It would be explained that the teachings were priceless but this was nonetheless an opportunity to make a gesture. Students would be informed that they could donate by cash or cheque. This speech would then typically be followed by a statement from Sogyal about the fact that he did not keep the money for himself (although some witnesses suggested he would indicate that he might keep a small amount to cover daily necessities), but would use it to donate to worthy Buddhist causes, such as supporting monks in Tibet who were in retreat, or to help build temples. Some of the witnesses I spoke to were involved in collecting the offerings. They told me that the money collected would be counted up by Rigpa staff and kept in personal safes within Sogyal’s living quarters at the relevant Rigpa centres. Witnesses that I spoke to were involved in providing detail to Sogyal of exactly how much had been donated and they confirmed that this would run to many thousands of pounds. Two of the witnesses that I spoke to confirmed that Sogyal would ask for some of the money (typically 500 euros per person) to be put in envelopes and delivered to his mother and to two of his girlfriends. Witness E explained that they had been asked to deliver significantly larger sums to two girlfriends of Sogyal. Several witnesses also told me that when they travelled overseas they would be asked to carry 10,000 euros in cash in order to move Sogyal’s money across country borders. There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that Sogyal enjoys what has been described as a “five star existence”, however, based on the evidence provided to me, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. The problem arises if he is doing so using money which has been donated for a different purpose. Most significantly, it seems to me that it is essential that the money should not have been donated on the understanding that it would be used for benevolent purposes, if it was, in fact, going to fund Sogyal’s chosen lifestyle. I have received evidence that people working for Rigpa are the ones who count, account for, store and move the money that is offered at the end of a retreat. Despite this, the Rigpa management witnesses displayed a lack of knowledge about what happens to that money and what it is for. Witnesses gave evidence that there are safes located at various Rigpa centres which are believed to contain significant amounts of cash (said to be in excess of £0.5 million each). Some of Sogyal’s girlfriends are alleged to receive payments of around £50,000 per year out of these cash reserves. The cash is also alleged to fund their yoga retreats in Thailand, botox and expensive lunches, though I did not see any direct evidence of this. Whilst I have not found evidence to support the allegation that Sogyal Lakar demands money from his students to support his lifestyle, it appears to me that there is at least the potential that money has been collected by or for him under false or misleading pretences, or that the money received has not been fully accounted for by him. I do not have sufficient evidence to make a definitive finding about this and, subject to the points below, I consider that this requires further investigation, particularly in relation to the role that Rigpa students are alleged to play in explaining what the donations will be used for. 34 Close consideration should also be given to the extent to which (if at all) charitable money has been used to fund extravagant personal expenditure when local Rigpa centres host Sogyal. I do not have sufficient information to reach my own findings on this point. The UK trustees have explained to me that there has recently been a process of enquiry, investigation and accounting to the Charity Commission (in the UK) about the UK Charity’s fundraising and I am told that “this has been gone through meticulously with the auditors and solicitors for the UK and disclosed to the Charity Commission”. As a result of this process, I am told that the UK trustees are satisfied that all money received by the UK charity has been properly used and accounted for. I am not in a position to assess any aspect of this financial investigation or the conclusions that were reached, so I would simply invite the UK trustees to review the findings of fact and areas for further investigation which are set out above (particularly in relation to what is said during the offering pitch) to ensure that this does not impact upon the advice that they have received or the position detailed to the Charity Commission. To the extent that it has not been done already, it seems that a similar process of enquiry, investigation and accounting should be undertaken in all of the other relevant jurisdictions in which Rigpa operates to ensure that appropriate financial practices have been adopted. 35 Tainting appreciation of Dharma The Complaint sets out the damage that is alleged to have been done to the letter writers’ appreciation of the Dharma. Given the conclusions that I have reached above, it is entirely understandable that they feel this way. In his letter to me, Sogyal says “my utmost concern is that no one should be deterred from their spiritual path and their commitment to following the Buddhist teachings”. Sadly, it appears that the damage has been done for many of those with whom I have spoken."
"Findings
I turn now to the specific allegations against Sogyal Lakar as set out in the Complaint, and my conclusions in respect of them. The allegations broadly fall into the following categories:
a. Physical abuse.
b. Sexual abuse.
c. Emotional and psychological abuse.
d. Living a lavish, gluttonous and sybaritic lifestyle.
e. Tainting appreciation of Dharma.
I deal with each of these in turn below, but I think it is helpful initially to reiterate that there are varying degrees of closeness to Sogyal Lakar, with the closest relationships regularly referred to as the “inner circle”. I heard a great deal of evidence about the fact that Sogyal Lakar’s inner circle includes a team of students who provide assistance and personal care to him, typically working without pay in exchange for food and board. The level of care that Sogyal requires is extreme; this is not just about people booking his travel, driving him around, delivering his bags and cooking his meals. Sogyal requires round the clock assistance from the ‘lama care’ team, which is required to meet his every need, as and when he it arises; they dress him, massage him to sleep and even attend to him in the toilet. Some members of the lama care team described having to sleep on the floor of his room, being on call through the night, and many were surviving for weeks at a time with around three hours’ sleep a night. The experiences of Sogyal Lakar’s inner circle are very different from the experiences of those who are less close. Physical abuse It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar physically abused the letter writers by slapping them, punching them, kicking them, pulling their ears, hitting them with a backscratcher, phones, cups and hangers. It is alleged that a student was knocked unconscious by Sogyal and that monks and nuns were left bloodied and scarred. It was specifically alleged that a nun was “gut punched” by Sogyal in front of hundreds of people in August 2016 at Lerab Ling. I started the investigation in the belief that it was alleged that there had been a handful of such incidents, however, I received corroborated evidence from several witnesses that people in the inner circle were beaten on a daily basis. Witness F claimed to have been beaten by Sogyal Lakar more than two hundred times. Of the twenty two witnesses whose direct evidence I received, thirteen of them confirmed that they had been hit by Sogyal Lakar (this includes people who are currently senior students of Rigpa). The witnesses gave evidence that (between them) they were aware of a further twenty people who were regularly subjected to physical abuse. Of the thirteen witnesses who said that they had been hit, the degree to which they said this happened varied considerably. By way of illustration: Witness P (Rigpa management): “He might tap someone on the head with a backscratcher; he did it half a dozen times that I saw. It was not violent … he might shake somebody … with me, he once pretended to punch me in the stomach, it was a non-event. He would kick people up the bum, very publically”. 17 Witness N (Rigpa management): “He might shake you or pull your ear or tap you with a backscratcher, this was all in the context of surprise. He never hurt me or went too far. He has punched me. It was not full force and I laughed. I did witness Sogyal punching a nun. She said it was experienced differently”. Witness O (Rigpa management): “He would occasionally [use physical force], not often. He once hit me on the knuckles with his backscratcher … I didn’t like it … but there was a context – I had made a mistake of some kind. I’ve seen him hit [students] with a backscratcher a few times – a handful - I can’t recall who, it is not a clear memory”. Witness C: “Sogyal would walk along a line of students and hit us all in the stomach. [On one occasion], he came up behind me and hit me in the back. It was no worse than a game of rugby, I wasn’t very concerned. I’m aware of others who were badly affected. At a 1992 retreat a woman was brought to the front with 300 people there and he slapped her in the face. This clearly didn’t help her. Most violence happens within the small inner circle, occasionally he would slip and do it in public. His punches were not soft, but not totally furious. He was like an enraged drunk on the street, on the edge of being out of control”. Witness L: “I was hit by Sogyal a couple of times with his backscratcher. He hit me three times and left me with a lump on my head. It was painful and was in anger. He would also kick me up the backside and slap me over the head … it was usually about food. There was one time when Witness E and I both got hit because we hadn’t put food in the car for him. He called us both in, called us idiots and hit us both. Witness J did something and Sogyal beat him a lot with the backscratcher. We [approximately 9 students] were all practising in the lounge room. Sogyal came in and was furious about something Witness J was doing. He was throwing the remote control and hitting Witness J over the head. He was furious with Witness J”. Witness L also gave evidence of witnessing physical abuse against a female student on more than one occasion because she had been “too slow to do something”. Witness J: “There was a lot of verbal and physical abuse that went on and I developed high anxiety. I slept on the floor next to the phone and would have panic attacks whenever the phone rang. Physical abuse was quite common, he would use a backscratcher to hit people over the head or hand or back. If he couldn’t reach them, he would pick something up and throw it at them e.g. a phone. In private, every day was random and you wouldn’t know what mood he was in. He could be demanding things and then hitting, throwing objects and pulling hair. He would focus on me, Witness E, Witness F, [and six other students]. 18 Mid-way through the retreat there was a major event – Buddha’s birthday. We had to practise all day and had been preparing for several days. We took everything to the house and practised together – it started around 4pm and went on until around 2am. During this, Sogyal was the most wrathful I have ever seen. Everything and everyone was annoying him. He was hitting everyone, pulling hair. Witness E and I were his main targets and he hit us repeatedly with the backscratcher and with leather bound parchments. My scalp was bleeding and my ear ringing from having been hit on the side of the head. He hit me 10 or 15 times and there was nothing soft or painless about it. It stings, it hurts, it knocks you over. If you try to move away he will call you out and make you come closer. I was in complete shock and petrified. I was in a state of anxiety – my instinct was to run but those around me were convincing me to stay. I felt I had no choice. My brain stopped working – it was damage control to try to stay alive. We were on call, day and night. We would try to pre-empt any scenario that would anger him and do anything to try to avoid irritation. I saw Witness F being beaten a lot … Witness F was regularly hit - he would use his backscratcher to hit her. … it was unnerving to watch [another student being beaten]. You would have a sense of relief that it’s not you and you would be terrified. Stepping in would make it worse for both of you”. Witness F: “On one occasion he was hitting me, [and three other students] with a broken wooden hanger. He hit each person repeatedly and was so tense that he bit through his own lip while doing it and drew blood. My initial assumption was that the blood on his face had come from one of the people he was hitting. [One student] was knocked unconscious. If one of his girlfriends was at their limit, he would hit me instead. Between 2006 and 2010 I was beaten over two hundred times; if he was in a bad mood he would beat me every day, or more than once a day. At one stage he had fallen out with [his girlfriend] – he would meet her daily at her chalet, come back to his chalet, slam the door and punch me in the guts. He was just taking out his frustrations; it was nothing to do with me. He did the same thing every day for ten days. On one occasion I asked him if he had remembered to take a calendar that he wanted to give as a gift. He responded by grabbing me by my ear - it ripped all down the back and was bleeding”. I was provided with a recording of a teaching delivered by Sogyal Lakar to Witness F. During this teaching, Sogyal can be clearly heard to state: “It’s like each time I hit you, I want you also to remember that you’re closer to me, closer to me. And the harder I hit you, the deeper the connection. And if this breaks it means that all the barriers of communication are gone. But, however, frankly speaking I don’t want to resort to that”. Witness E: “I saw him crash [two students] heads together so they both collapsed. 19 He lined [three female and three male students] up, grilling us about something, in his house. He started slapping and punching me, and kneed me in the stomach. He then grabbed a thick practice book and slammed it down on my head, breaking the spine of the book on my head. I fell to the floor … he grabbed his glass and threw its contents in my face, then grabbed a metal stupa and went to hit me in the head with it. He stopped and backed off. I thought if he hit me with that, I’m going down – I thought I might never get up. His favourite thing to hit us with was his backscratcher [which he would hit his male and female attendants with] … he would hit us four or five times on the head and he wielded it heavily – it was wooden with teeth on the end and he would hit with the teeth end. At one point, the beatings were daily; it could be several times a day. I would be left bruised and sore. He would come across as utterly ferocious and would seem to have lost control. The blows were aimed at my head and were serious, real blows. I saw Witness J start to take the flack – Witness J received gruelling, ferocious, constant beatings … it was like a mauling, slapping Witness J over and over until Witness J was reduced to a frightened jelly-like person. He would grab your ear and twist it whilst pushing your head down and dragging you along. He punched me out of the blue, a full punch to my jaw while I sat in the driver’s seat and him in the passenger seat because I forgot a torch. There was a correlation between being hit and Sogyal having fallen out with his girlfriends; out of the blue we would be screamed at for nothing. He hit me over the head and made me bleed, there were around twelve people sitting around the table when it happened”. Witness K: “He realised an offering had been removed and he got apocalyptically angry – he was screaming and shouting down the phone. It was nothing to do with me but he threw a shoe at somebody and then got out his backscratcher and hit us all on the head - he whacked all of them, and me, really hard on the head. I felt very shocked and didn’t understand. I got hit several times with the backscratcher. I saw that if you argued back or drew a boundary it got worse. He was hitting [another student] with the backscratcher and she pushed back and said it was abusive. He was berating her for calling it abuse and said she was an idiot and not a good Buddhist for calling it that. Arguing against it doesn’t help”. Witness M described a female student who “received severe beatings”. Details are set out in the confidential annexe to this report. Witness G described witnessing a female student being beaten by Sogyal with his backscratcher because a document was in the wrong font. Details are set out in the confidential annexe to this report. Witness G said “I asked her if she needed help and she said “forget it, leave it”. That bothered me; a man shouldn’t beat up a woman with a stick”. Witness G also recounted another experience, as set out below: “On another occasion, I had to leave a retreat early to get back to work. I knew he wouldn’t be happy if I left without telling him, so told [another student] that I was leaving and asked her to tell Sogyal. When I was about to leave I checked with her that she had told him and it turned out she had forgotten. We went to find him and [the other student] told him that my friend and I had to leave early. He blew up saying “what do you mean you have to leave?” He 20 went into a rage and someone in the corridor was holding a huge binder. He grabbed it and whacked us both over the head with it. In 2016, I was sitting 10 metres from the stage at the temple at the Dzogchen retreat. Sogyal came out and went to get up onto his throne – Student 19 has to bring him a stool. Student 19 put the step stool down for him. He steps up, then turns around and punches her. I heard the air explode out of her and she doubled up. I could see she was crying and she ran off stage. I thought it was totally fucked up. I was restraining myself and wanted to stand up and challenge him. The punch was the type of punch you use to get control of someone. If someone was out of control in a bar it’s what I would do to enable me to grab them and cuff them while they’re disabled. He’s a strong, stocky guy; it was akin to a one inch punch that you see in martial arts. The next day Witness P read out a letter from Student 19 which said ‘it’s all OK, just part of my training – sometimes I don’t pay enough attention’.” Several of the other witnesses I spoke to were present when Student 19 was punched in the stomach by Sogyal at Lerab Ling in August 2016, in front of several hundred people. Witness H corroborated the account of Witness G above, telling me that: “[Sogyal] quickly, aggressively and forcefully hit her in the stomach. I was close enough to hear the exhalation. She doubled up, burst into tears and disappeared for several hours … when she reappeared she had reddened eyes, a facial expression of defeat and upset, a downturned mouth and a slumped body. The next day she appeared on the stage and had to confess her own failings and agree that this had been highly beneficial and privileged event … she had the appearance of a prisoner of war stating how well the North Koreans had treated her”. I have seen a statement issued by Student 19 since the incident in the temple has come to prominence in which she says: “The day of the incident, the 25th of August, there was a smaller mishap, but [Sogyal] Rinpoche was definitely not in a fit rage [sic], there was just a single moment of wrath, which manifested in a soft punch, but it was neither violent or abusive, at least not to my feelings. Even though I was in tears and crying afterward and the situation easily could have appeared and seen as me being punched very hard, the fact is that I cried because of a complete different reason, which had nothing to do with the actual situation. The incident just sparked open an inflammation of a mental wound I was in the middle of experiencing”. The language used by Student 19 is strikingly similar to that used by the current senior students who confirmed that when they had been hit by Sogyal this had been a “soft punch”, not something that caused them real pain. It gives me the impression that this is the ‘party line’ on the issue; the striking of people cannot plausibly be denied, but its significance can be minimised. On hearing these accounts, I wanted to understand why people had ‘allowed’ themselves to be hit; why hadn’t they complained, why hadn’t they hit him back? This was explained to me as follows: Witness G told me that it was “a source of eternal shame” that Witness G had not spoken up when Student 19 was punched. Witness G told me “I sat in abject denial of what my eyes were seeing; the whole room did … we were conditioned to belonging for so long that there was not a peep of protest. Even more disturbing is that over the course of the next two days we were excoriated [by Sogyal and Witness P] for even thinking something had happened … we were a brainwashed group, myself included” 21 Witness E told me that he understood that a teacher slapping you is a training; as a student Witness E believed that you should see it as pure, carry on and not react. Witness E said that, “as a newcomer, you look around you at the other senior students who it happens to and they don’t react, so you think that it must be doing some good as they tolerate it without complaint, and the students would even tell you that it is a training and is helping them in their practice”. Witness E said that “you kind of let go of your common sense when it comes to boundaries and you’re prepared to believe it might wake you up faster”. Witness F made similar comments and explained that Sogyal would start by hitting you once, to see how you would react. Witness F said that “if you took it, he would then continue, gradually building up the severity”. Witness I (who alleges both sexual and physical abuse) spoke about the need to adopt a coping mechanism where she would close her mind to what was going on and pretend it did not exist. Witness I spoke of feeling ashamed and unable to tell anyone about it. Witness J said “your mind leaves your body, it’s a skill to protect yourself. [The abuse] has a numbing effect”. Witness I believed that Sogyal likes to be surrounded by people who had experienced trauma, abuse or neglect, and felt that he was easily able to identify such people. Witness J explained how being involved with Rigpa left Witness J disconnected from friends and family in the outside world and that the thought of leaving is very difficult because it means leaving the whole “Rigpa family” behind too, Witness J said “I didn’t have the strength to walk away”. Various witnesses talked to me about not being ready to turn their back on something that they had been so devoted to for so many years, and not being ready to accept that it was not what they thought and hoped it was. Witness K said that you start off being told by everyone around you that you are lucky to be singled out by Sogyal for special attention; you feel special because of this. Witness K said that she had witnessed other people push back or try to draw a boundary and things got worse. This had been Witness J’s experience too. Witness K said she was told by another student to look at how well the people around Sogyal were doing and trust his process. Witness K said she was told that it is not an easy path, but it is the quick path to enlightenment. Witness K acknowledges that, technically, it was possible to leave, but doing so would have damaged the relationship between Witness K and a close family member, who was a committed member of Rigpa, and Witness K felt she had nowhere else to go. In his letter to me, Sogyal Lakar says: “It is clear that a number of people feel that they have been hurt, and hold me responsible. That is something I have to acknowledge and face up to. I am truly sorry if anything that I have said or done has caused anyone offence or harm and I ask in all humility for their forgiveness. At the same time from my side I find it very hard to recognize myself in the descriptions in the letter, and the picture that it paints. It distresses me that my actions and intentions could have been misunderstood and characterized in this way. I am a human being doing my best to follow the Buddha’s teaching and I have never knowingly set out to harm anyone, which would be against the most fundamental precept that I follow, as a Buddhist. Nonetheless I would be the first to acknowledge that I have faults, and I am always striving to work on myself, to become a better and more compassionate person. That’s why it is so troubling that anyone could be left with the impression that I am acting merely out of impatience, irritation or anger”. 22 Findings: physical abuse Based on the evidence that I have heard, a number of witnesses gave credible evidence about physical abuse that they have personally suffered and witnessed. Several of the accounts were corroborated by other witnesses, and where there is a lack of corroborative evidence, the facts complained of are very similar, even from witnesses who were at Rigpa at very different points in time and locations in the world. On the balance of probabilities, I conclude that Sogyal Lakar has subjected a number of his closest attendants to repeated physical violence by assaulting them with his own hands, his backscratcher or with items that he could throw or hit them with. Whilst some of the physical abuse might be described as being part of a teaching, it is clear that on many occasions the reason for the violence was Sogyal’s own frustrations – for example, he would hit attendants for no particular reason following an argument with one of his girlfriends. I have heard compelling evidence that he effectively used several of his attendants as a punching bag to vent his own frustrations and anger. It is also clear to me that, on the balance of probabilities, even if Sogyal’s violence towards his students was intended to help them on the path to enlightenment, the physical abuse caused real harm. I heard evidence of an individual being knocked unconscious, several people were left with bleeding wounds and one received a concussion which lasted for days. 23 Sexual abuse It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar: a. Used his role to gain access to young women and to coerce, intimidate and manipulate them into giving him sexual favours and has had decades of sexual relationships with students, including underage girls. b. Instructed students to strip, show him their genitals, take photos of their genitals and show them to him, give him oral sex, have sex with their partners in his bed and describe sexual relationships to him, as well as lying to cover up relationships with him. c. Groped students and asked one of his students to photograph attendants and girlfriends naked, forcing others to make collages of the images for him which were then shown to others. d. Offered a female attendant to another lama for sex. These allegations are dealt with below. Allegations with no supporting evidence / insufficient evidence In relation to some of these allegations, I did not receive any evidence to support them and therefore cannot uphold them. Specifically, nobody gave evidence to me that they had been required to take photos of their own genitals and show them to Sogyal. I heard some evidence in relation to relationships with girls under the age of 16, but I do not consider there to be sufficient proof of such relationships on the basis of the evidence provided to me. I do not therefore uphold this allegation. No witness gave evidence to me that they had been asked to have sex with their partner in Sogyal’s bed. One witness spoke of being invited to use a room in Sogyal’s chalet to have ‘make-up sex’. There was no suggestion that this was forced upon the couple, albeit that there is a general theme from all witnesses that they could not say no to Sogyal. I cannot therefore uphold this allegation. I did, however, receive a significant volume of evidence in support of the other allegations, which I deal with below. Allegation that Sogyal Lakar used his role to gain access to young women and to coerce, intimidate and manipulate them into giving him sexual favours and has had decades of sexual relationships with students, including underage girls Sogyal Lakar is open about the fact that he has sexual relationships; he is not a monk and is not required to remain celibate. He is known to have often had girlfriends who are significantly younger than him and to have had more than one girlfriend at the same time. There is nothing wrong with this, if they are consenting adults. Sogyal Lakar is also known for being attended to by a number of beautiful young women, who form a significant part of the lama care team. Again, on the surface there is nothing wrong with this, however, several witnesses shared their experiences of this role with me and their evidence was very troubling. I am particularly concerned about the vulnerability of the individuals who gave evidence that they were called upon to provide sexual favours to Sogyal Lakar and the apparent abuse of Sogyal’s power over them. It was again striking how many similar accounts were provided by different witnesses spanning a considerable time period – it supports a conclusion that Sogyal Lakar has a particular modus operandi when it comes to securing sexual relationships with his students; particularly young women. 24 First-hand accounts Witness K shared the following information with me: “When I was 18 or 19, he asked me to come and meet him at his personal shrine in his house. He said he had had a dream about me and it would be good if I worked for him as an attendant. He asked if I wanted to and I said yes. I understood it would be like a PA but the uber rich version, bringing him anything and everything he might need including food, laundry, cleaning and carrying his bags. He said it’s really important that you never talk to anyone about anything that goes on while you’re working, especially don’t tell [a family member also in Rigpa] as it will damage [that person’s] view and relationship with the dharma. I said OK. I didn’t expect this to mean there would be anything awful, but I understood I would have information about what he spent his money on and what he did which he would want to keep private. I was very young and emotionally vulnerable; he knew this. One day he showed me some sexy photos of [another student] on the beach to see if I was shocked. I wasn’t. Within three months of me arriving, I was helping him one evening to get ready for bed with [another student]. I had to bring his hot water. He suddenly asked me to lick and touch his genitals. He said it in a jovial way and I wasn’t sure if he was serious. [The other student] smiled and said “yes, do it”. I tried but I freaked out and he said “oh, that’s OK” and he dismissed me. The next day I felt very uncomfortable and said I was not well and stayed in bed. A couple of hours later I was called and told he wanted to see me in the garden straight away. I went to the garden reluctantly and he started screaming abuse at me, saying “you think I’m attracted to you, why would I be?” He was aggressive and it was terrifying, I was not used to being yelled at. I started to cry and felt panicked. I said I didn’t think that, but felt bad because I had failed him and his test. He immediately turned nice and said “oh no, you did well”. I felt shaken and was not OK with it. I had no one to talk to. I then went to [another country] with him [as part of the lama care team] and I was leaning over to give him something. He put his hand down my top and touched me. He said my nipples were young. I felt shocked. [Some time later], I attended a retreat and was feeling better and more on track. I was alone with him in the shrine room and he asked me to give him a blow job. I tried to be a good Buddhist and see it as a teaching. It was an out of body experience. I didn’t want to do it but I did. I didn’t do it for long and he then dismissed me. It felt like a power play, he didn’t seem particularly aroused”. Witness L recounted the following experience which took place when Witness L was aged around twenty: “Sogyal asked me to take my clothes off. It was just before he was about to teach and I had been ironing his clothes in the lounge area of his hotel room. He was on the bed in his underwear and called me into his bedroom. I laughed and made a joke about not wearing nice underwear. I think my reaction made clear that I wasn’t going to do it. I felt shocked, nervous and vulnerable. He dismissed me and I went back to ironing his robe, my heart was pounding and I wanted to run”. Witness I also reported first-hand experience of this, which is set out in the confidential annexe. Witness A was a former girlfriend of Sogyal, who confirmed that she had been in a consensual sexual relationship with him. She gave evidence, however, that on one occasion she had experienced a non-consensual sexual act by Sogyal. Details of this are set out in the confidential annexe. 25 The Rigpa management witnesses, Witness N, Witness O and Witness P accepted that Sogyal had girlfriends, and sometimes more than one at a time, but all considered these relationships to be consensual and denied ever seeing or having knowledge of him behaving inappropriately, or using the teachings to persuade people to have sex with him. Very significantly, however, Witness P had witnessed a female student, being instructed to take her clothes off by Sogyal Lakar. Witness P stated that the response of the student was to burst into tears but not to comply with the request. Witness P says that Sogyal Lakar did not press the issue and changed the subject. Witness P was not concerned by this instruction and considered it to be an example of Sogyal Lakar having an agreement with the female student to “intervene in [her] thought pattern by saying this”. Rigpa management Witness N had also witnessed Sogyal telling a female student to strip and reported that she then removed one item of clothing. Further evidence – second hand accounts I also received further, second hand accounts of similar, inappropriate sexual behaviour by Sogyal Lakar from Witnesses B, C, E, M and S, the details of which are set out in the confidential annexe because they relate to people who have not consented to that information being included in this report. Because I did not speak to the alleged victims first-hand, these accounts necessarily must carry less weight in my assessment of the evidence than the first-hand accounts that I have referred to above. For the avoidance of doubt, I would have upheld the allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour without these additional accounts, but they add further credibility to the accounts that I have heard and reflect the potential that there are further victims who have not yet come forward. Consent A number of individuals with whom I spoke told me that they did not want to participate in sexual activities with Sogyal and were not, therefore, consenting adults. I have given careful consideration to the question of whether, despite this evidence, Sogyal Lakar could reasonably have believed that they were participating as consenting adults. It is apparent that some of the witnesses who gave evidence of performing sexual favours, or being intimately touched by Sogyal against their will did not expressly say no to him; quite often the evidence is that they complied with a request or a demand from him without outward complaint but because they felt they had to. Some of the witnesses who spoke to me talked about that fact that when Sogyal first started to show them attention (although not sexual attention) they saw this as a blessing and a positive thing for their development as a Buddhist. Witness K, for example, spoke about initially feeling special to be singled out to work for him. According to the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service, under the UK’s sexual offences legislation consent is only given when someone agrees by choice to participate in the activity and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. The word consent should be given its ordinary meaning, but there is a difference between consent and submission. Consent is required for each and every sexual interaction; consent can be freely given for one interaction and not given for the next. Some witnesses spoke about the apparent promiscuity or sexual openness of some of the alleged sexual partners of Sogyal, in particular the Rigpa management witnesses all made this point about one of the students. Witness O provided evidence to support this assertion in the form of a video of this student speaking openly about matters of a sexual nature. The Rigpa management witnesses all suggested that this student had been a willing sexual partner / girlfriend of Sogyal and that she had, in fact, “seduced” Sogyal. 26 There is no suggestion, however, that Witness L was a willing sexual partner of Sogyal Lakar. In his letter to me, Sogyal Lakar makes no express mention of his sexual relationships with his students; he makes more general statements about never having any intention to exploit or take advantage of students: “My abiding aim in life has been to transmit the Buddhist teachings as fully and completely as I can, to benefit as many people as possible. I cannot say I am entirely selfless, and I have no wish to exaggerate, but the way in which my character has been portrayed – as selfinterested and pleasure seeking – is far from the truth. The welfare of my students has always been paramount in my mind. My intention towards them has always been characterized by compassion and by love. I have always sought to ensure that they make a deep connection with the core of the teachings, and come to a personal understanding… It has never been my intention to exploit or take advantage of students. I respect them deeply and have only sought to benefit them. Whatever I have said or done when interacting with my students has been with the aim of helping them to awaken their true inner nature. Nonetheless I see this intention has been misunderstood and my action have been judged otherwise. For some, this way of training may not have had the desired outcome. I must accept my own responsibility in this, and apologize to anyone who feels this way”. Sogyal’s statement - “whatever I have said or done when interacting with my students has been with the aim of helping them to awaken their inner nature” - causes me concern if and to the extent that it relates to sexual relationships. He is not saying, I thought that these were ‘normal’ consenting adult relationships. A sexual relationship which is designed to help awaken the inner nature of a student is, necessarily, a sexual relationship between a student and a teacher; it is not a relationship between equals. In that context, if such a relationship can ever be consensual (which is a controversial question in itself), I consider that the requirement for clear and unequivocal consent is paramount. That point is made even starker in a situation where the student considers that she is not permitted to speak out against her teacher and has been taught to see everything their teacher does as enlightened behaviour. Findings: abusing young women It is alleged that Sogyal used his position to coerce, intimidate and manipulate young women into giving him sexual favours. There is a significant weight of first-hand evidence which leads me to uphold this allegation. By way of illustration, Witness K, referred to above, who became upset when asked to strip gave evidence to me that she had first been sworn to secrecy with a threat to her karma and that of her family in the event that she broke this promise. This promise was extracted from her within a week of first coming to work as a helper in the lama kitchen as a teenager, having come to a retreat by way of respite from a period of depression and self-harm. Having broken down and refused to strip, she alleges that she was subjected to aggression and anger and she says she was also hit with a backscratcher. On the balance of probabilities, I do not believe that Witness K freely participated in sexual activity with Sogyal Lakar. These interactions were against her will and took place after Sogyal had shouted at her after she had first said no to him. She was vulnerable and not in a position to refuse him: in my view she submitted; she did not consent. I also conclude that Sogyal Lakar attempted to use his position of authority to obtain sexual favours from Witness L and I am seriously concerned about the ability of Student 15 to provide consent freely against the backdrop of physical abuse alleged to be directed towards her which is outlined in the confidential annexe. 27 Whilst one of the witnesses may initially have enjoyed Sogyal’s attentions, and may even have been flirtatious with him, I do not accept that she consented to the sexual relationship that developed and the use of threats of Samaya breakage and bad karma towards her demonstrate that the relationship arose out of an abuse of power. I am unable to make a clear finding in relation to the experiences of Witness A; this allegation arises out of a different sort of relationship (Witness A describes herself as a former-girlfriend of Sogyal). There is simply not enough direct or corroboratory evidence to enable me to uphold this allegation. I do not believe that Sogyal Lakar could reasonably have believed that Witness K, Witness L or Witness I consented freely to his actions. When a significantly older man, who is responsible for a student’s spiritual development, and who uses physical force against that student, tells that student to perform sexual favours for him, I cannot accept that there is any basis upon which this could be said to be a consensual act. I should make clear that I do not conclude that all of the sexual partners of Sogyal are the victims of sexual abuse. There are some individuals who appear to be treated quite differently, are looked after by Sogyal and consider themselves to be his girlfriends. I spoke to one such individual who had a relationship with him in the 1970s and said he was a “loving and gentle man”. I do not think that the same can be said when it comes to the vulnerable people working in the lama care team, who are required to attend to Sogyal’s every need around the clock. It is entirely possible that Sogyal has allowed himself to believe that these women choose to be his sexual partners but I cannot accept that there is any legitimate basis for that conclusion on the evidence I have heard. Requiring students to lie to cover up relationships with him Witness E told me that Sogyal Lakar would often be having a relationship with five or six women at a time. Witness E would, for example, be expected to drive Sogyal to a hotel where one female student was waiting for him in the hotel room. Witness E would then be instructed by Sogyal not to tell another student, who was known to be his girlfriend. Witness E explained that a number of Sogyal’s sexual partners were based in the same city and there would be times when one girlfriend was visiting Sogyal via one staircase as Witness E was escorting another girlfriend out of the building, via another exit. Witness E accepted that most of the girlfriends knew about each other and would discuss it amongst themselves. This does not, therefore, appear to be wrongful behaviour on Sogyal’s part per se, aside from expecting a Rigpa volunteer to give up time to facilitate his exclusively personal arrangements. Whilst I accept the evidence of Witness E, I cannot uphold this allegation as an act of abuse or similar wrongdoing on the part of Sogyal Lakar. Groping students, photographing attendants and girlfriends naked, and forcing others to make collages of the images Witness G alleges that, on one occasion, Sogyal walked up to him in front of eight or nine of his attendants and grabbed Witness G by the testicles; it is alleged that Sogyal squeezed Witness G’s testicles and made a lewd comment about whether or not Witness G was aroused. Witness G says he tried to laugh this off, but felt violated by this act and continues to look back on this as a “damaging and traumatic event” and a moment of “abject humiliation”. Witness G believes that this was an assertion of authority on Sogyal’s part, as opposed to being sexually motivated. Witness G spoke of Sogyal being very concerned about the size of other men’s penises, and how his own compared. Witness E made similar comments, and told me that Sogyal would often ask male students to show him their penises. As set out above, Witness K also gave evidence of Sogyal groping her. 28 On the balance of probabilities, I conclude that Sogyal Lakar did grope Witness G and Witness K against their wishes; whether this was sexually motivated or a display of power does not, in my view, make a difference as to the harm done to the students in question. It is alleged that Sogyal required one of his students to photograph attendants and girlfriends naked, forcing others to make collages of the images for him which were then shown to others. Several witnesses confirmed to me that they understood that a student who was a photographer was required to take naked photographs of Sogyal’s girlfriends and attendants. Witness L gave evidence of an occasion when four female students were called upstairs, and Witness E was then asked to go upstairs to take photos in Sogyal’s personal shrine room. Witness L said “I went upstairs a day or two later and saw photos of them all posing naked in the shrine room. I felt shocked to see it”. . Witness G also saw intimate sexual photographs of Student 3 in Sogyal’s possession and alleges that he saw Sogyal share these with another lama. I have been provided with evidence (which is addressed in the confidential annexe) which confirms the existence of these photographs. I have also been provided with evidence (which is addressed in the confidential annexe) which confirms the existence of some of the video footage that Witness E says he was asked to film or was given by Sogyal to edit. This includes a video of two young female attendants who are asked by Sogyal to dance for him. One starts dancing in a bikini until he simply tells to her: “take it off”. She complies with the instruction. In my opinion, the student who is dancing looks uncomfortable and awkward. I was told that this footage was filmed by Witness E, at Sogyal’s request. Another of the videos includes a student being told by Sogyal that she can stop what she is doing when she wants to, but when she immediately asks to stop she is told by Sogyal to repeat what she was doing “one more time”. Multiple witnesses confirmed seeing naked pictures of “Sogyal’s girls” in his accommodation and to there being huge blown up collages with naked images of one of his girlfriends in his private rooms, to which only the inner circle were granted access. Witness E, who took many of the photographs, explained that Sogyal would ask him to crop and enlarge the images that he would take so as to focus only on the genitals of the women in the photographs. I am satisfied that Witness E, in particular, was asked to photograph attendants and girlfriends naked. Whether there is anything wrong in this conduct depends primarily on whether the photographs or videos were taken of people who did not consent to them being taken or shared in the way that they were. I have not spoken to any of the women in the photographs so cannot determine whether they were consented to this on the evidence available to me. This could be investigated further if they women in the photographs were willing to provide evidence in future. I have not heard direct evidence of anyone being “forced” to make collages of the images for Sogyal, as is alleged, but there is evidence to support at least one student being asked to do so. There is also a significant volume of evidence to support the conclusion that saying no to Sogyal Lakar was not easy to do. Witness E, however, confirmed that taking the photographs was not the problem in itself, it was more about the relationships Sogyal was having with these women that was the cause for concern for this witness. Offering attendants to other lamas It is alleged that Sogyal offered one of his female attendants to another lama for sex. I heard evidence that this happened on more than one occasion. 29 Witness E told me that he had heard Sogyal Lakar on the telephone to another guru on two occasions and that during the phone calls Sogyal ‘offered’ a student to the guru. This account is dealt with in the confidential annexe. I was not able to corroborate this account independently; however, another witness spoke of a similar experience, as set out below. Witness K “Another lama was visiting and Sogyal made comments in front of others asking me if I would sleep with the lama. I thought he was joking and trying to get a rise out of me. I jokingly replied “yes, of course” and Sogyal then said “good you can be his attendant” he also told me to go and buy condoms. … On the second day of attending the lama, he led me to a bedroom and started kissing me. I suddenly realised it was not a joke and I froze. The other lama realised I was not consenting and stopped. He asked if I was OK and let me go back to the house. I realised I was in over my head and locked myself in a bathroom and broke down. I didn’t have anywhere else to go – I was 20, had nowhere else to live, no money and no food. I was very scared. There was no way out but I felt very unsafe. Someone found me and I was crying hysterically. I had to meet with Sogyal and the other lama; Sogyal said he was sorry as he thought that [offering me to the other lama] would be good for me. Witness E then took me to a bus stop and put me on a bus to [the city], even though I had nowhere to go when I got there. No one contacted me or checked I was safe”. Another witness provided a similar account to me, but did not wish for details to be included in this report. Based on the evidence available to me, on the balance of probabilities, I uphold this allegation. Emotional and psychological abuse As set out in the section above entitled “Sogyal Lakar’s teachings”, I consider that there are aspects of Sogyal’s teachings which are designed to push a student’s buttons psychologically. In his letter to me, Sogyal Lakar states: “I believe it is common in many traditional cultures and disciplines – such as education, art and sport – that the teacher encourages the student to go beyond his or her limits and sometimes this kind of training can be confronting. It is in this spirit that at times I have tried to train my own students, especially when I see great potential in them. I believe this is very much in keeping with the culture of training that we find in Tibetan Buddhism. I have never had the feeling that I was obliging someone to do something that was against his or her own will, and that was not aligned to their inner development”. It is alleged, however, that Sogyal’s techniques went beyond legitimate teaching and crossed the line into emotional and psychological abuse. Some specific examples of this allegation were included in the Complaint. These examples were: a. Comments about Ian Maxwell b. Telling people their loved ones would be at risk / died because they displeased Sogyal c. Pushing students to the verge of emotional breakdown d. Use of Rigpa therapy 30 I deal with these in turn below. Ian Maxwell comments It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar referred to a senior student, Ian Maxwell, as an “asshole” during a live streamed teaching from the unfinished temple at a time when Ian Maxwell was dying in hospital. I have been able to obtain a copy of the December 2015 live teaching in a temple during which Sogyal Lakar spoke about Ian Maxwell, who was terminally ill at the time. Sogyal does refer to Ian Maxwell as “a bit of a stubborn asshole” in this teaching and says “so I kick his arse”, but in my view this comment appears to be to be an attempt at a comic aside in the middle of a longer commentary which talks about the positive impact that Ian has made, how “crucial” he has been and asking everyone to “think of him very strongly”. Rigpa management Witness P acknowledged that these comments had been made but felt that they were taken out of context. Witness P said “I was shocked when I heard it, but he was doing it to wake people up again”. It is also alleged that, after Ian Maxwell died, Sogyal Lakar told students that Ian had “died spitting up blood” because he had defied Sogyal in the past, and that Sogyal would ask students “do you want to die spitting up blood like Ian for defying me?” Witness E confirmed that these comments were made in his presence and he understood this to be a reference to Ian Maxwell and Sogyal not seeing eye-to-eye in relation to the cultural side of Tibetan Buddhism. Witness E said that Ian Maxwell just wanted to benefit from the teachings and did not want to deal with the rest of Sogyal’s behaviour. Rigpa management Witness N was not aware of the specific comments alleged to have been made about Ian Maxwell but confirmed that there was some tension in the relationship between Ian and Sogyal. Witness N also confirmed that Sogyal would say deliberately provocative things at times. On balance, I accept that these comments about Ian Maxwell were made, but the comments made in the temple appear to have a context which makes them less shocking. The comments made about dying spitting up blood being the fate of people who do not follow Sogyal are distasteful and add to the overall concerns that I have of people being put under great pressure not to question Sogyal’s actions. However, I do not believe that these comments can, on their own, be described as emotional or psychological abuse. Telling people their loved ones would be at risk / died because they displeased Sogyal The Complaint refers (at footnote 3) to one of the letter writers being told that his partner got sick because the letter writer had shouted at him. I understand that this was during a telephone conversation between only the letter writer and Sogyal Lakar. This complaint is consistent with evidence received from Witness K and Witness I that they were told that there would be negative karmic consequences for them and their family members if they spoke about their dealings with Sogyal. Witness P commented that Sogyal had devoted a lot of time to the letter writer and his partner during her illness, that he would pray for her and showed incredible kindness to them. Witness P confirmed that Sogyal: “… probably did say these things – it was all about disturbing thoughts, provocation, startling things that woke people up. It’s easy to get the wrong perception”. However, I do not believe that I have sufficient evidence to uphold the specific complaint about the comments Sogyal is alleged to have made about the letter writer’s partner. 31 Pushing students to the verge of emotional breakdown A number of the witnesses that I spoke to gave evidence of the serious impact of their involvement with Sogyal Lakar on their health. In addition to numerous examples of witnesses working very long hours, with little sleep, for long periods of time, the following specific examples of long-term harm being caused were given to me: a. Witness F gave evidence of being forced to undergo elocution lessons because Sogyal would refuse to understand anything said by Witness F, insisting that Witness F must speak in a received pronunciation, English accent. Witness F says that this went on for months and months and meant that “my tongue was taken away from me” and that “it was like being gagged”. Witness F felt that this was an effort to break Witness F’s attachment to Witness F’s own country and family. Witness F reports being left with chronic fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. b. Witness K reported that she suffered from hallucinations and suicidal thoughts and still suffers from chronic insomnia and anxiety. Witness K says she has spent thousands on therapy since leaving Rigpa. c. Witness J reported having suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and extreme anxiety. Witness J described being terrified of the phone ringing and explained how this anxiety had negatively affected Witness J’s relationships. Witness J felt able to start therapy after several years of processing what had happened and the therapy is ongoing. I was informed that there are a number of other students who suffered breakdowns as a result of their involvement with Rigpa. I was not able to corroborate this information with those individuals. Overall, based on the information available to me, I conclude that Sogyal did indeed push some of his students to the verge of emotional breakdowns. Use of Rigpa therapy It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar introduced ‘Rigpa therapy’ for his closest students and that trained therapists were “given the task of dealing with the pain that was being stirred up in the minds of those [he] was abusing”. It is alleged that therapists were used to ensure that the students did not see Sogyal as an abuser, but instead blamed old family relationships. Witness N accepted that there was a period when four or five students, who were also therapists, were looking at how modern therapy techniques could have confluence with Buddhism. Witness N stated that one of these therapists also saw some students privately, but that this was not a Rigpa offering. Witness P also told me that there was a therapist (Student 20) who would see people, but described this was an individual thing and not arranged by the organisation. Witness P said that people would choose to see Student 20 and it was private and confidential, there was no official organised therapy. Witness O agreed that there had been some work done by a group of therapists to see if they could develop a Buddhist inspired therapy technique, but that this had not been able to make much progress. Witness O confirmed that there was some completely informal therapy with a therapist (Student 20) who would informally support students with any problems during the three-year retreat. Witness O stated that this would be confidential and Witness O’s sense was that the therapy was used to get to the bottom of what the cause of any problems might be. Witness K told me that she was “assigned” to Student 20 for therapy. Witness K said that this was not a great experience. Witness K says that Student 20 “made it all about your relationship with your parents”. Witness K says that Student 20 was caring but she felt that the key message was that 32 Witness K should keep Sogyal’s behaviour under wraps and not make a scene. At one point, Witness K says she was told to see Student 20 for therapy twice a week. Witness K says it was a relief to be able to speak to someone, so Witness K did not say no. Witness K continued seeing Student 20 for therapy via Skype for some years but now sees this as a means of keeping Witness K tied up in the Rigpa way of resolving these issues instead of going to the police. Witness F describes Rigpa therapy as a strategy of psychological abuse, saying that Student 20’s job was to mop up the mess created by Sogyal, which enabled him to push them all further and Student 20 would catch them. Witness F agrees with the account of Witnesses N, O and P as to how the therapy discussions started, but says that the idea of one-on-one therapy with Student 20 came from Sogyal himself. Witness F was “sent” for Rigpa therapy around the time that Witness F started to develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Witness F says that the idea of the therapy seemed good at the time. Witness F described the therapy as a chance to relax and not be on-call for an hour. Witness F says that during the therapy, Student 20 was told by Witness F about the beatings and other concerns. Witness F says that Student 20’s focus was that the behaviour of Sogyal was purifying Witness F’s relationship with Witness F’s father. Witness F describes this therapy as their one chance of finding help, and that it was abused. Witness F alleges that Student 20 once told Witness F “the things these girls tell me – if they happened in the real world I’d have to report them”. I have heard a recorded public teaching in which Sogyal asks for Student 20 to share something that has come out of Witness F’s therapy sessions. Student 20 then shares information coming from those therapy sessions with Sogyal and the rest of those present. This is clear evidence of the misuse of these therapy sessions and the confidential information shared therein. Witness L confirmed that she was aware that Witness F and a number of the young women in the lama care team were seeing Student 20 for therapy. Witness L alleges that those undergoing therapy reported back that Student 20 would persuade them to blame their families, or their karma from past lives, instead of holding Sogyal responsible for his actions towards them. I must make clear that I have not received any testimony from Student 20. There is, however, a significant volume of evidence to support the allegation that (whatever Student 20’s intentions were) the therapy sessions held by Student 20 were encouraged or sanctioned by Sogyal Lakar and caused harm to those who participated in them. On the balance of probabilities, I uphold the allegation that therapy sessions were improperly used. Lavish, gluttonous and sybaritic lifestyle It is alleged that Sogyal Lakar demands money from his students to fund his lifestyle, which involves a steady supply of sensual pleasures: personal chefs, entertainment, cigars, drivers, masseuses, and expensive restaurants. It is alleged that he demands free labour. It is apparent that Sogyal has a taste for the finer things; he does indeed have a staff available to him around the clock, including masseuses, drivers and chefs. Many of these people, however, appear to donate their time, without charge, as part of a personal offering, or people worked in exchange for free accommodation and food on retreat. Some witnesses explained that there is an expectation within Tibetan Buddhism that a high lama would have these things. Whilst it was understood that some lamas would reject such trappings and live a simple life, it was acknowledged that Sogyal is not one of them. He was described as being from an old school, aristocratic family with certain expectations. Several witnesses spoke about Sogyal having very specific, and expensive, taste when it came to meals that were cooked for him and restaurants that were frequented. It was accepted by Rigpa management Witness N that the cost of such hospitality would be met by the local Rigpa group, not 33 by Sogyal personally. It is not clear to me the extent to which these costs were met by the Rigpa entities or by individual students within the local sangha; it appears that there was a mixture of both. Several witnesses described the fact that at the end of a retreat, students are invited to give a financial offering to Sogyal Lakar. The offerings were encouraged through a speech known as the ‘offering pitch’ in which a senior student or monastic would explain that the money people had already paid was to pay for the infrastructure of the retreat, accommodation and food. It was explained that Sogyal did not personally receive any of this money and that there was now an opportunity to express gratitude to him for the teachings and to ‘accumulate merit’. It would be explained that the teachings were priceless but this was nonetheless an opportunity to make a gesture. Students would be informed that they could donate by cash or cheque. This speech would then typically be followed by a statement from Sogyal about the fact that he did not keep the money for himself (although some witnesses suggested he would indicate that he might keep a small amount to cover daily necessities), but would use it to donate to worthy Buddhist causes, such as supporting monks in Tibet who were in retreat, or to help build temples. Some of the witnesses I spoke to were involved in collecting the offerings. They told me that the money collected would be counted up by Rigpa staff and kept in personal safes within Sogyal’s living quarters at the relevant Rigpa centres. Witnesses that I spoke to were involved in providing detail to Sogyal of exactly how much had been donated and they confirmed that this would run to many thousands of pounds. Two of the witnesses that I spoke to confirmed that Sogyal would ask for some of the money (typically 500 euros per person) to be put in envelopes and delivered to his mother and to two of his girlfriends. Witness E explained that they had been asked to deliver significantly larger sums to two girlfriends of Sogyal. Several witnesses also told me that when they travelled overseas they would be asked to carry 10,000 euros in cash in order to move Sogyal’s money across country borders. There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that Sogyal enjoys what has been described as a “five star existence”, however, based on the evidence provided to me, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. The problem arises if he is doing so using money which has been donated for a different purpose. Most significantly, it seems to me that it is essential that the money should not have been donated on the understanding that it would be used for benevolent purposes, if it was, in fact, going to fund Sogyal’s chosen lifestyle. I have received evidence that people working for Rigpa are the ones who count, account for, store and move the money that is offered at the end of a retreat. Despite this, the Rigpa management witnesses displayed a lack of knowledge about what happens to that money and what it is for. Witnesses gave evidence that there are safes located at various Rigpa centres which are believed to contain significant amounts of cash (said to be in excess of £0.5 million each). Some of Sogyal’s girlfriends are alleged to receive payments of around £50,000 per year out of these cash reserves. The cash is also alleged to fund their yoga retreats in Thailand, botox and expensive lunches, though I did not see any direct evidence of this. Whilst I have not found evidence to support the allegation that Sogyal Lakar demands money from his students to support his lifestyle, it appears to me that there is at least the potential that money has been collected by or for him under false or misleading pretences, or that the money received has not been fully accounted for by him. I do not have sufficient evidence to make a definitive finding about this and, subject to the points below, I consider that this requires further investigation, particularly in relation to the role that Rigpa students are alleged to play in explaining what the donations will be used for. 34 Close consideration should also be given to the extent to which (if at all) charitable money has been used to fund extravagant personal expenditure when local Rigpa centres host Sogyal. I do not have sufficient information to reach my own findings on this point. The UK trustees have explained to me that there has recently been a process of enquiry, investigation and accounting to the Charity Commission (in the UK) about the UK Charity’s fundraising and I am told that “this has been gone through meticulously with the auditors and solicitors for the UK and disclosed to the Charity Commission”. As a result of this process, I am told that the UK trustees are satisfied that all money received by the UK charity has been properly used and accounted for. I am not in a position to assess any aspect of this financial investigation or the conclusions that were reached, so I would simply invite the UK trustees to review the findings of fact and areas for further investigation which are set out above (particularly in relation to what is said during the offering pitch) to ensure that this does not impact upon the advice that they have received or the position detailed to the Charity Commission. To the extent that it has not been done already, it seems that a similar process of enquiry, investigation and accounting should be undertaken in all of the other relevant jurisdictions in which Rigpa operates to ensure that appropriate financial practices have been adopted. 35 Tainting appreciation of Dharma The Complaint sets out the damage that is alleged to have been done to the letter writers’ appreciation of the Dharma. Given the conclusions that I have reached above, it is entirely understandable that they feel this way. In his letter to me, Sogyal says “my utmost concern is that no one should be deterred from their spiritual path and their commitment to following the Buddhist teachings”. Sadly, it appears that the damage has been done for many of those with whom I have spoken."
No comments:
Post a Comment