The documentary "Twisted Yoga" became known in Romania, and echoes in the Romanian press appeared
quickly. MISA came out with replies and statements addressed to the Romanian producers and collaborators
(link). Then came the turn of the articles in the Romanian media, which expressed themselves towards this
documentary in a way that MISA didn't like. It seems that they were most disturbed by an article on the
Romanian press platform hotnews, entitled "A documentary about the abuses of Gregorian Bivolaru is on
Apple TV+" (link). Just on the morning of the day the 2026 spring yoga camp in Herculane began, MISA
published a "Right to Reply" to the mentioned article, which largely repeats the criticisms of MISA contained
in the "pertinent press release" addressed to the documentary's producers and which was analyzed in a blog
➤ First, the author transforms a commercial true-crime documentary into a so-called indisputable source
of truth, without maintaining the necessary critical distance. An audiovisual product built for emotional impact
and audience cannot substitute for rigorous journalistic investigation, legal documentation or factual analysis.
However, the article takes almost entirely the film's conclusions, also based on a mixture of facts, opinions
and speculations, and presents them as certain reality. The result is not a balanced journalistic analysis,
but an indictment built by taking over a narrative.
comments: By blaming the Romanian journalist and the documentary filmmakers, the MISA leaders
are trying to divert attention from what is presented in the production, which is based on revelations
made by former MISA/ATMAN students, which MISA has so far avoided presenting and analyzing
in detail, as it should have been in the first place. Since the documentary takes up these statements
made by former students, and the journalists present them in their articles, the question of whether
what is presented in the documentary and in the articles is true or not, comes down to the question
of whether the statements of the former students are true or not.
This is the big problem of MISA, because throught evidence obtained both during the surveillance of MISA
locations carried out secretly for a year, and during the raids, many aspects of the statements of the alleged
victims, made prior to the start of the investigation, are confirmed.. It is precisely because of the evidence
collected during the investigation that Bivolaru was forced to admit that female students were brought
to him clandestinely (source) and that he had sexual relations with some of them (source). The only thing
left for Bivolaru is to deny that there was abuse and that everything that happened had in fact had the full
consent of the women. But those from MISA are keeping quiet about all this, because for them it is more
efficient to combat some media articles in general than to try to combat indisputable facts, which have been
recognized by their leader.
➤ The article takes almost entirely the conclusions of the film, also based on a mixture of facts, opinions
and speculations, and presents them as certain reality. The result is not a balanced journalistic analysis,
but an indictment built by taking over a narrative, [...] with formulations that induce the public to the idea
of a conviction already pronounced. This approach violates the principle of the presumption of innocence
and the minimum standards of responsible journalism. We emphasize that Gregorian Bivolaru has been
imprisoned for 2 years and 5 months without being brought to trial, which in itself represents an abuse,
a violation of human rights. France has already been repeatedly convicted by the ECHR for violating
art. 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that: "Anyone arrested or
detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other magistrate authorized by law and shall be
entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial."
comments: It is not the film and the press articles that give the public the idea of a conviction that has already
been pronounced, but the very fact that the main accused was forced to admit at least in part what the alleged
victims claimed, and the French courts extended his pre-trial detention every 4 months, based on the evidence
presented. Bivolaru was brought before the judge on December 1, 2023, three days after his arrest, and the
investigation has been in the criminal prosecution phase for so long because the investigation has expanded
with new complaints in several countries. Recently, the investigations of prosecutors in the Czech Republic
(details) were added to the file, after those in Finland (details). There was also the extradition process of the two
Stoian (ATMAN's leaders) from Georgia (details), which lasted 9 months, a third of the duration of the pre-trial
detention so far. As for the "right of the detained to be released during the procedure", it must first be said
that the right is one thing and its fulfillment is another (for example, we all have the right to work, but we do
not automatically have a permanent job, because employers are not obliged to hire us). Then, to put it bluntly,
Bivolaru has somewhat lost his right to conditional release since, during his existence, he has repeatedly
demonstrated his "paranormal" ability to disappear during criminal investigations. Bivolaru even publicly
bragged about how he escaped from the Romanian Secret Police's custody! Then he disappeared during
the investigation in 2004, immediately after being released at the end of March and was on a very viewed
TV show (where he boasted about the success of the aforementioned escape - video). He later disappeared
from Sweden, where he had political asylum, to appear in France, where he had an itch down there.
Released on parole in September 2017 from a Romanian penitentiary, he disappeared just as Finland issued
an arrest warrant for him! Now all of this has turned against him, no one is releasing him on parole anymore
because they know he disappeared every time!
➤ Thirdly, the article completely ignores the information available in the public space that does not support
the pre-established conclusions. [...] The author only includes elements that reinforce the negative narrative:
criminal charges, incriminating testimonies, references to old charges, the inefficiency of the institutions,
alleged sexual exploitation. Legal explanations regarding the asylum granted in Sweden, the controversies
regarding the previous charges in Romania, the opinions of supporters and members – former or current –
with different experiences, the criticisms brought by the academic environment to the Western press obsessed
with the “sectarian danger”. The deliberate lack of any alternative perspective transforms the text into a militant,
not journalistic material.
comments: "The available information that does not support the pre-established conclusions", invoked by
the MISA Press Office, has no connection with the facts described in the documentary, which MISA is trying
to cover up. His asylum in Sweden has been revoked (MISA says nothing about this and, even more so, does
not say why), the previous accusations and controversies do not exonerate or incriminate him in connection
with what happened in Paris, and the opinions of those who were not eyewitnesses to the events recounted
in the film are not relevant to the present case. ”The criticisms brought by the academic environment” are also
militant material, not journalistic. The insistent invocation of "alternative perspectives" only seeks to divert
attention and balance the negative image created by the accusations from the alleged victims.
● The tendentious and disqualifying assertion that Gregorian Bivolaru used his "biography as a persecuted
marginal" as "symbolic capital" after the fall of communism, denotes not only ignorance, but also a lot of ill will.
comments: Bivolaru constantly victimized himself (and often succeeded), invoking not only the persecutions
during the communist era, but also the alleged current persecution by the ”forces of evil”, as seen in the letters
ostentatiously "sent" to his address in Sweden while he was in Paris, written in the specific language used
by him, in his style. Even before the court in France, he declared that he was "the victim of a political plot"
(source).
● Sweden granted political asylum to Gregorian Bivolaru in 2005 not because he "presented himself as
a victim of political persecution" - the author's insinuation that Gregorian Bivolaru would have fooled
the Swedish Supreme Court is downright hilarious - but because a real trial took place there, witnesses
were heard, including Mădălina Dumitru, and the court came to the conclusion that Gregorian Bivolaru
could not really have a fair trial in Romania.
comments: Bivolaru even fooled the Supreme Court of Sweden, a fact that was noted by the Swedish state
a year after Bivolaru's arrest in Paris. First, Bivolaru and his acolytes fooled the so-called expert Nylund,
who did his "research" only based on the statements of those in MISA, on which occasion he found it "justified"
to request photos in a swimsuit for registration in MISA camps and activities (details). And what M.D. declared
before the Swedish Supreme Court is contradicted by the recordings of telephone conversations between
her and Bivolaru, on the basis of which he was convicted (details indictment against Bivolaru, page 5-9).
● A minimum of documentation would have allowed the author to find out that the charges in France are very
similar to those previously brought in Romania against Gregorian Bivolaru and 20 other yoga practitioners,
who were all definitively acquitted in 2021, after 17 (!) years of trial and two procedural cycles.
comments: The accusations in France may be "very similar" to the previous ones in Romania, but the latest
ones in France are based on concrete (flagrant) evidence, which could not be disputed by Bivolaru. The solid
accusations in France, placed next to the "very similar" ones in Romania, show the same modus operandi,
only that the evidence in Romania was not solid enough.
➤ Fourth, the subjective and sometimes contradictory testimonies in the documentary are treated as absolute
evidence. The article is based largely, like the documentary, on the accounts of alleged victims and dramatization.
It is not explained whether these statements have been independently verified, legally corroborated or contested.
There is no nuance regarding the possibility of retrospective influence, contradictions between witnesses
or the position of the accused.
comments: The complete correspondence between the subjective testimonies of the alleged victims and the
concrete evidence that supports them, makes the respective testimonies objective. The word "retrospective"
refers to the contradiction between the impression the victims had at the beginning of their participation in MISA
activities and their impression at the end. It is something normal. And the contradiction between the witnesses
and the position of the accused always exists, it is something inherent! Otherwise, it would be about admission
of facts and the trial would have been over long ago. In fact, these so-called contradictions actually show
the contradiction between the facade image presented by MISA at the beginning and the reality inside, which
appears after a while.
The idea of retrospective influence does not emerge from the documentary nor does it appear as something
natural, because the former students first left the group following negative personal experiences and then
wanted to take legal action, so that other women would not fall victim. As for the position of the accused,
as in the case of the podcasts about MISA/ATMAN, they were asked for their opinion. The documentary
shows that Bivolaru was contacted through lawyers, but did not respond, and during the trial he denied the
accusations against him. Natha Sweden and Natha Denmark responded that they did not organize trips to
Bivolaru and are not responsible for the personal choices of the students. TARA Yoga did not comment due
to the ongoing trial, and ATMAN stated that the accusations were not proven, that they condemn any abuse
and also that they are not responsible for the personal choices of the students. The fact that no representative
of any ATMAN schooll appears in the documentary (they probably felt embarrassed) and that they only sent
short answers, in fact avoiding answering the accusations and questions, it is not because of the media, but
because of the lack of counterarguments.
● In reality, the documentary does not "tell the story through the eyes of the victims", but chose to present
ONLY the stories of a few people out of the tens of thousands who are or were students of schools affiliated
with the Atman Federation, without presenting a single contrary opinion, at least to save appearances.
The article mentions "direct and assumed testimonies", but ignores the equally direct and assumed testimonies
of the people supposedly "liberated" by the French police during the brutal raids of November 28, 2023.
All of these people, women and men, without exception, told the police that they were there voluntarily, that
they were not abused or trafficked in any way, they did not file any complaints against Gregorian Bivolaru
and did not consider themselves victims of him, but of the brutality of the French gendarmes.
comments: A journalistic investigation focuses strictly on facts and evidence, it does not deliberately seek
"contrary opinions, even for the sake of appearances", because it should not present appearances, but realities.
Then, the testimonies of those detained during the raids would be relevant to the specific case only to the
extent that they were eyewitnesses to the alleged facts. At least the men were certainly not. The deliberate
bringing into discussion by the MISA Press Office of the existence of some men detained during the raids,
aims to hide the fact that only women were invited and brought clandestinely to Bivolaru.
● The author also fails to see the illogicality and contradictions in the statements of the "victims" interviewed
in the documentary. On the one hand, these people claim that they knew that "in tantra sexual initiation
[actually erotic] was a common practice" - and even confessed that they wanted it, only to later claim that
they were manipulated into doing something they did not want.
comments:
The MISA Press Office shamelessly lies when it states that all the people interviewed in the documentary
knew in advance that they were going to be sexually initiated by Bivolaru and wanted this. Only Andrea
stated this, while Ashleigh clearly stated that she did not know, and as proof, she refused to go to the guru's
house when she came to suspect that sexual intercourse was about to take place.. Also, the fact that the guru
was a fugitive and was hiding from the police, excludes the idea that the initiative came from the women.
In fact, those from MISA state (correctly) that it is known that in Tantra sexual initiation is a common practice
(just like in ordinary sexual life, because for everyone there is a "first time"), but they avoid specifying that
sexual initiation is given from one lover in the couple to the other, not necessarily from the guru to the follower!
The essential thing is that the women in the documentary (except Andrea) were not clearly announced in advance,
including by the guru, that a sexual initiation by him was intended, so that they would give their consent
in advance, this also against the background of maintaining complete secrecy in this regard within the group,
by taking oaths of silence. By emphasizing "erotic instead of sexual", those in the MISA Press Office are
pathetically trying to insinuate that it could not have been about sexual abuse and rape, because Bivolaru
➤ Last but not least, the author insults and stigmatizes a vast and diverse spiritual community, reducing it
to clichés such as "cult", "network", "danger", "obedience" or "control mechanisms", especially since he did
not even make an attempt to contact these people to convince himself how "dangerous" they are.
comments: The author had at his disposal the MISA Communicate sent to the filmmakers of the documentary,
from which it is clear that the leaders of the movement avoid answering questions directly and either bypass
the subject or seek to lead the discussion in other directions. As for the accusation of being a sect and the
dangers associated with it, it was shown on the blog that MISA is a sect according to its own criteria (details).
Under these conditions, it really makes no sense for journalists to ask for MISA's opinion, which is anyway
unrelated to the article and the documentary. Considering that the hotnews platform did not broadcast the
right of reply analyzed here, why does MISA not sue both the author of the article and the news platform?
Are they afraid that they would lose? That would be the case, considering even the arguments here!
➤ In conclusion, the article clearly lacks independent verification, plurality of sources, the presumption of
innocence, the demarcation between fact and opinion, which makes it a partisan reproduction of an already
constructed narrative, and not a rigorous journalistic material. This fact is all the more serious since most
readers do not have access to Apple TV to draw their own conclusions, but will take the tendentious and
subjective conclusions of the article.
comments: Then why don't MISA make the documentary they blame available? Or why not make a video
in response to the claims in the documentary, using the essential sequences from it, like they tried with the
BBC podcast, "The Bad Guru"? For exactly the same reason why they haven't presented and debated any
statement from any alleged victim which appers in the documentary so far: because they have no way to fight
the accusations!
Alternative link:
ReplyDeleteMISA shouts at the Romanian press
Linkuri alternative articole
ExMISA channel