Talk:Deepak Chopra

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deepak Chopra article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as Mid-importance). Transcendental Meditation movement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Yoga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics: Living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles complementary and alternative medicine The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days). Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Please read before starting Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Chopra's work in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are: Neutral point of view: Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI) Neutral point of view: Due and undue weight (WP:UNDUE) Neutral point of view: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL) Also of particular relevance are: Tendentious editing: Righting Great Wrongs (WP:RGW) Verifiability: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG) In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 22, 2017, October 22, 2021, and October 22, 2022.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (link) TimidGuy (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (disclosure)

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. SAS81 (talk · contribs) has been paid by ISHAR on behalf of Chopra Media, Chopra Foundation, Deepak Chopra. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. Blocked as a sockpuppet of Tumbleman and was Rome Viharo. Three COI disclosures: First this version, then this version, then this version. Askahrc (talk · contribs) has been paid by ISHAR on behalf of Chopra Foundation, Deepak Chopra. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. Also known as "The Cap'n". Disclosed here. Connected with Viharo per this self-disclosure in January 2014 and these statements in February 2014. Indefinitely topic-banned from everything Deepak Chopra here in March 2016 due to an arbitration enforcement sanction.

I would suggest creating a section for the criticisms and moving the voices of the critics to it. As it stands, many of the sections, especially about beliefs, are heavily interrupted reads, as much about the critics as it is about Chopra’s teachings. It makes for a very poor narrative if you just want to learn a little about Chopra and teachings. 2800:BF0:A803:12FB:353C:50B9:6890:7980 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

WP:CRITS are bad form. Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Recent release of the Epstein files document his involvement with sex abuse of underage girls and possible human trafficking. ~2026-78758-6 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Covered in the "Personal life" section. Source was updated today. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02376375.pdf

We just need to say that Deepak Chopra is in the EPSTEIN FILES CamillaFROST (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a WP:BLP violation. There is a wide gap between being mentioned in Epstein correspondence & your unsubstantiated allegation that the Epstein files document his involvement with sex abuse of underage girls and possible human trafficking. You have failed to provide any verification from a reliable source. Peaceray (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

And note that WP:BLP demands decent sources, not crap like [1]. AOL is (at least mostly) an aggregator like WP:YAHOONEWS, and in this case the source was wealthofgeeks.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look here

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02382260.pdf CamillaFROST (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Basically, we might include the Chopra/Epstein whatevers that CNN or The Hindu thinks are interesting enough to write about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the removal. We shouldn't be considering such content without far better sources given what BLP requires. --Hipal (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've restored the "cute girls" quote, given that the Wall Street Journal qualifies as a "far better source". Ericoides (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it given the bylines of that WSJ article. Looks like an opinion piece.

I'm concerned with the rest of the content and have removed it given the poor sources and NOT, POV, and BLP problems with the presentation and inclusion. Please don't include without consensus as required by BLP. I suggest writing a new presentation with better sources before trying again, preferably on this talk page first. --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

(Personal attack removed) ~2026-47721-3 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Personal attack removed. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Administrator's note: Oh well, that's a pity in a way, Hipal, because I wanted to comment on it, to say that if a user posts a bad-faith assuming attack like the one Hipal removed (link to it here), they'd better expect to be promptly blocked without warning, as the TA in question has now been. I hope this information is of use. Bishonen | tålk 18:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC).Reply

Mention of Epstein was first added to the article this past November 21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deepak_Chopra&diff=1323358290&oldid=1322364764), where it has remained. Until now. Removing all mention of Epstein is completely untoward, and for you to go on about doing things without "consensus" is ironic. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, considering people are eager to comment in this thread, hopefully someone will do that at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The cookie cutter nature of this entire thing is hilarious ~2026-12068-82 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please restore the cute girls quote. Here’s a primary source from the DOJ ~2026-17373-18 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02656615.pdf. Sorry here’s the source ~2026-17373-18 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Basically, we might include the Chopra/Epstein whatevers that CNN or The Hindu thinks are interesting enough to write about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is criminal that there's absolutely no mention of the 3,000+ references of this man in the Epstein files. How are the US Justice files not a "quality" source? Thisisjoelee (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is not that the US DOJ is not a quality source, it's that it's a primary source, and we rely on secondary sources to avoid WP:Original research. In the case of Chopra there are in any case sufficient reliable secondary sources about the Epstein connection (The Guardian, ABC Television, BBC, etc) for us to include material about it in this article. Ericoides (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Times. Yes, there are sources for a WP:PROPORTIONate mention of Epstein-Chopra in the article. Opinion pieces can also be WP:RS for facts in context, and I see no reason to assume WSJ got the fact wrong in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

deepak bros deeply involved in removing it. see Hipal aove. ~2026-47721-3 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Or they think WP:BLP is important on this website. You will think what you think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, best to develop proposed content on this talk page, get the required local consensus for it, then either add it in or seek help from a noticeboard. Identifying one strong source that clearly about Chopra with broad encyclopedic context could change this, but I'm not seeing any. Given Chopra's celebrity, I think it likely that something close will be written given time. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, best to develop proposed content on this talk page... Says you. I see no indication that the usual process for improvement of article insufficient for dealing with any legitimate concerns. The article has mentioned Epstein since November, making inclusion the consensus, and your insistence on its removal, against consensus. Also, watch out for the 3RR, I believe you are at your limit. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:FOC and take a close look at WP:BLP. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What is your BLP issue with this, which has been present since November until your removal: "Documents released by the U.S. House contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing." (link above). As it has been present since November, I think that qualifies as consensus which makes your repeated removal against WP:ONUS and disruptive. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, please FOC. See WP:TALK as well. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

My question is completely appropriate. I will ask you again: why should not the consensus version from November be restored? Marcus Markup (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

See the comments by Gråbergs Gråa Sång, my agreement, and my subsequent comments. Is there something that I can elaborate on from those? --Hipal (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your comments above pertain to proposed recent additions/changes, not the November consensus version I am discussing now, which was: "Documents released by the U.S. House contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing." and is sourced to the Times of India which is fine for such a basic statement of fact. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's incorrect. --Hipal (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

By prefacing your comment with I agree with the removal you were in fact responding to the removal of recent additions. The recent additions do indeed have BLP issues that two sentence bare statement of facts in the November version does not suffer from. The removal of recently added material, as it has no concensus and wnas challenged, was proper. Using it as rationale for blowing away every other existing mention of Epstein in the article because of it, is was not. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This isn't WP:FOC. I see no reason to continue with this back-and-forth at this point given BLP. --Hipal (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

When material is improperly excluded from an article, the article's talk page is absolutely the proper venue for it's discussion. WP:FOC is content resolution policy, but this is not a content dispute, per se. The issues I raise are not "content" based, but involve basic implementation of policy and guideline regarding consensus building, WP:ONUS, and respect editors are expected to have for prior consensus versions of the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for vehemently pursuing this disturbing topic. ~2026-18712-20 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker and financier Jeffrey Epstein, whom Chopra met over a dozen times between 2016 and 2019 to practise meditation and raise funds for "alternative science health projects", as well as attending a dinner at Epstein's New York residence, along with Woody Allen.^[1] In one email to Epstein from 2017, Chopra wrote: "God is a construct. Cute girls are real."^[2] In another email from 2017, Chopra invited Epstein to Israel, saying, "Relax and have fun with interesting people. [if] you want use a fake name . Bring your girls. It will be fun to have you."^[3]

The documents indicate that Chopra was aware of the legal cases involving Epstein at the time.

^[4] Chopra has denied any wrongdoing,^[5][6] saying that he is "happy to share whatever I know with authorised officials".^[1]

This is the last version removed. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Marcus Markup: What is your preferred version of the disputed content? Are any of the additional sources suitable to add, for DUE purposes at least? How about this version to start?

That is pretty much the November version (with an updated source) which is all I was advocating for. I could not care less about how it is edited going forward, as long as it is by the process of consensus building. I wish you all luck with that. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Documents released by the U.S. House contained exchanges between Chopra and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing.^[1]

Assuming we can find better sources to support it, the obvious problem is that it ignores the main context completely: Epstein files. --Hipal (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

completely agree! "exchanged e-mails about meetings" completely whitewashes over the fact that the emails were "BRING YOUR GIRLS" to the convicted child molester!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-14535-19 (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've started a discussion at WP:BLPN#Deepak_Chopra_mentioned_in_Epstein_Files to hopefully move us along. --Hipal (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've trimmed back the content, working from the better sources:

According to documents from the Epstein files, Chopra had multiple meetings and email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein. Chopra has denied any wrongdoing.^[1][2]

Again, we need better sources. There's not much to work from, and even the best publishers are relying heavily on quotes and presenting basic facts rather than creating a narrative about Chopra. It's difficult to avoid SYN, NOT, POV, and BLP problems in such circumstances. --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What are the best sources that we have so far for providing coverage about his connection with Epstien? NavjotSR (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Recently Chopra has been linked to Epstein thru very credible Department of Justice published documents.

The evidence is published by the DOJ on their website. 'https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files

Evidence such as. DataSet 209/ EFTA00464723.pdf Which states.

"European tour in April You should come to my 2 day workshop with your girls in Switzerland in Zurich - small village in suburbs A <emoji_ulf3fd.png>0 Will be fun Deepak Chopra MD"

While this shows no wrong nor allegation of such , there is concern possible that needs further inquiry.

CNN has recently also reviewed the recently published DOJ evidence, and shown clear evidence of Chopras interest in "girls", "bikinis" and like.

To be clear I am not saying there is any wrong here.

However CNN does allude to concerns.

CNN article here. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/23/politics/deepak-chopra-jeffrey-epstein-files

Further this until recently hidden secret emails show acts and possible wrongs which contrast the values and teaching of Chopra that millions have paid Chopra for via seminars and books.

Already in Europe many public figures have been removed or trained from public and private fund raising and other foundations.

Such contrast is concerning.

Wiki aims to be truthful and honest as well as balanced articles, on both sides.

There is no "controversies" section for Chopra.

Maybe it's time this page is opened up and it protection is removed or reduced.

Thanking you for your consideration. John64x (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

As there is no specific edit request here, I'm going to mark it as completed.

It appears to me that there is some discussion to be had about how involved Deepak was, and if any reliable sources can give us a clue. It seems that DC isn't just mentioned in the files, but is in fact a very frequent appearer, ranked highly in the cast of thousands, and sorting the wheat from the new age chaff is as yet not possible. Please refer to other discussions on this page.- Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 09:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Epstein/Chopra thing is mentioned in this article, and at least one other. Per WP:CRIT, a "controversies" etc section is generally considered a bad idea, they tend to become shit-magnets. This article contains stuff like "Physicist Sadri Hassani writes that "few people have distorted and defaced quantum physics more" than Chopra. Hassani recounts how Chopra co-opts the language of quantum mechanics and uses nonsensical diagrams to advance absurd propositions about the relation between science and Ayurvedic medicine.", it just not put under a "controversy" heading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Reply