Simply Unethical

Written by Rob Hogendoorn

Less than a minute

Tenzin Peljor (also known as Tenpel and Michael Jäckel) now writes: “I have a question to everyone reading here: did anyone check all of the court documents if a copy of the paternity test is in the files?” (Comment 175).

With this, Peljor admits that he didn’t even read the case files before publishing that the seventeenth Karmapa “fathered a child,” as was claimed on his blog by an anonymous “vetted contributor.”

All things considered, Peljor’s mode of operation is similar to that of ‘juice channels’: he routinely acts as if it is the responsibility of those he censures—not his—to make sure that the information he posts about them is factually correct.

Tenzin Peljor defends this practice by saying that he doesn’t have “time” to do a better job. I think his approach—shoot first, ask questions later—is simply unethical. Worse still, it is not in the interest of victims and survivors of abusive Buddhist teachers.

Originally posted as a long-Tweet on July 20, 2022 (links added).

About the author

Rob Hogendoorn

Investigative reporter and academic researcher Rob Hogendoorn (b. 1964) began researching the reception of Buddhism in Western society and culture in the early 1990s. His modus operandi remained the same ever since: independent, inquisitive and provocative.