Official Statement / Responses to Recent Media Coverage

Bentinho Massaro and his team were invited to respond to the allegations and claims presented in the HBO Max documentary De Influencer Goeroe. They firmly deny the allegations. Both of their complete responses to the makers of the series are published below in full and unedited.

Statement from Bentinho Massaro’s Friends and Teammates | June 2, 2026

We have become aware of an upcoming documentary that describes events from many years ago involving members of our community and close personal relationships. We are providing this statement so that the public has access to a perspective that has been excluded from the recent coverage.

First, we genuinely regret that some people experienced their time with us in a way that caused them pain. That is never what we intended, we take it seriously, and we have made many changes over the years, both structurally and interpersonally. We recognize that not everyone thrives in the kind of environment we created—one that was intentionally intense, focused on personal growth, and built around active daily collaboration. In hindsight, we could have been more discerning about who we invited and more attentive to how people were doing along the way. That said, we do not accept the overarching narrative being presented.

On the legal record:

Bentinho Massaro has never been charged with any crime in any jurisdiction. No police reports have been filed against him by any of the individuals now speaking out publicly, and we are not aware of any police reports filed by anyone else. Claims of an active arrest warrant in Sedona, Arizona, or an ongoing investigation are false. The Sedona police investigation from 2018 closed with no charges or further action. These are verifiable matters of public record that any journalist can confirm.

On the “refusal to talk”:

In 2022 he responded on the record to both de Volkskrant in the Netherlands and Rolling Stone in the United States. The Rolling Stone responses include detailed denials, explanations, and one explicit apology. The Volkskrant response was a general denial of all accusations, including this preserved on-record statement: “I have never and will never sexually abuse anyone or abuse them in any other way. I have an unusually deep respect for the phenomenon of free will... Such an accusation is therefore one hundred per cent untrue and will always be one hundred per cent untrue.”

Both responses remain publicly available. The claim that he “won’t engage” does not align with the record.

What is true is that Bentinho and our team have declined to participate in campaigns which compare him to Keith Raniere, Ted Bundy, and Jim Jones prior to any conversation. Declining to enter a conversation that begins with a verdict is not the same as refusing to speak.

What is also true is that Bentinho has, by personal choice, declined to engage in adversarial public combat with former friends, prioritizing their free will over winning a public argument. Whether that restraint was wise in retrospect is a fair question, but it should not be confused with refusal to speak.

On the most serious allegations:

We categorically reject the characterization of Bentinho as a sexual predator. The events described did not happen as portrayed. No police report has been filed in over five years. No contemporaneous documentation has been produced. No physical evidence exists. No independent witness has come forward to corroborate any of the most serious specific claims. The story being told depends entirely on the accounts of three individuals who have spent four years developing it in coordinated public media, and whose own earliest accounts in 2022 differed materially from what they are saying now. Reframing private adult lives through a criminal lens, years later and without the consent of all the people involved, raises serious concerns about privacy and autonomy. Some of those portrayed as victims do not see themselves that way and were never consulted.

On the financial allegations:

The primary financial transfer discussed was documented at the time as a gift, signed by the individual making it. This documentation was provided to Rolling Stone in 2022 and remains available. The funds were lost during the well-documented 2021 cryptocurrency market collapse. Bentinho made voluntary repayments afterward, not due to legal obligation but personal choice. The matter was resolved through a mutual settlement that the recipient at the time described as “incredibly healing.”

On Brent Wilkins’ death:

Brent’s suicide in December 2017 was thoroughly investigated by Sedona police. Detective Chris Stevens interviewed Bentinho directly, and the case was closed with no charges. Multiple independent journalistic sources have confirmed this outcome. We continue to grieve Brent’s death. We ask the producers to treat his tragedy with dignity rather than as a rhetorical device.

On the NDAs and working dynamics:

The NDAs referenced in the campaign were discontinued years ago. The team continues to use standard, narrowly-scoped confidentiality agreements limited to operational matters: retreat logistics, participant information, and unreleased program content. These are the kind of routine confidentiality agreements used by any organization with proprietary material. They do not restrict anyone from speaking about Bentinho, about their personal experience, or about anything that took place in their personal lives. The original broader NDAs were introduced after a journalist covertly infiltrated the community under a false identity, in order to protect the safety and locations of gatherings. No NDA was ever enforced against anyone, and we recognize in retrospect that their use created a wrong impression.

Our working dynamics were never based on employment contracts or coercion. People contributed their time and skills to shared projects when and if they wanted to. Nobody was prevented from leaving or forced to participate in any activity. Everyone came and went freely over the years—traveling independently, visiting family, living their own lives, and staying or leaving by choice.

On the overarching narrative:

Applying the “cult” framework indiscriminately to unconventional spiritual communities or tight-knit groups is neither accurate nor fair. The events in question involved a few adults living, learning, and occasionally making mistakes together. This does not constitute a crime or a cult.

The stories being highlighted date from five to ten years ago. We have evolved considerably since then. Since releasing his book ME: A Book About You, for free online, Bentinho has felt complete in his calling to share and has indefinitely stepped back from public teaching. Team members are pursuing independent projects. Our practices have matured. We are a dispersed group of friends who collaborate, visit each other, and support one another’s learning. When we do offer programs or events, they are constructive, mature, and focused on positive growth. We are not the group portrayed in this coverage.

We remain open to serious, good-faith journalism conducted in a format that preserves responses accurately and allows balanced examination. We do not believe the current documentary’s structure and participants will achieve that standard. We issue this statement nonetheless, so the record shows we were invited to respond and have done so.

We wish well to everyone involved. We remain available for honest, private dialogue. However, we will not accept false criminal characterizations of our lives. Where specific, provably false statements are published and cause harm, we will pursue appropriate legal remedies in the relevant jurisdictions.

— Bentinho’s friends and teammates

Response to additional claims raised by third parties in the Concept Street / HBO documentary

Submitted in response to the communication of 5 June 2026 from Concept Street / HBO, requesting response to specific third-party statements appearing in the documentary. This response is supplementary to the earlier statement. It should be noted that I have not actually seen the documentary nor have I been handed a transcript or any specifics. This response is solely based on a list of short ‘statements’ provided by Concept Street. I address each of the claims you raised in your communication of 5 June 2026 on its own merits below.

On the claim that there is a cult or coercive group led by me, and that this may be dangerous.

I reject this characterization. Participation in retreats, programs, and gatherings has always been entirely voluntary, with people free to join, criticize, and leave at any time—as demonstrated by the fact that the current critics did so and are now speaking publicly without interference. Unlike high-control groups, there has never been physical or informational isolation from the outside world, nor barriers preventing anyone from departing—people come and go freely—traveling independently, visiting friends and family, and returning or not entirely by choice. My teachings have always been publicly available, and I have never been charged with any crime in any jurisdiction despite years of public accusations.

We are a small network of adults engaged in voluntary spiritual and personal development work. The group has evolved considerably over time, with me stepping back from public teaching and many of us now pursuing independent projects. The current “cult” narrative rests largely on the accounts of a small number of former participants who were enthusiastic for years and only later reinterpreted their experiences.

On the claim that there has been sexual, emotional, and financial abuse.

This has already been addressed at length. I reject the characterization of myself as a sexual predator. There has never been any form of abuse by me. These claims have no basis in fact whatsoever. I also reject the financial abuse framing—the principal financial claim concerns a documented gift later resolved through a voluntary settlement that the recipient herself described at the time as “incredibly healing.” The emotional abuse framing reduces the intensity of a spiritual community to a single negative category and is not consistent with the lived experience of the many people who have participated in it.

On the claim that public humiliation has taken place.

Spiritual teaching traditions sometimes involve direct, candid, and challenging communication with students. Direct teaching is not humiliation. Without specific incidents identified, I cannot respond more particularly than to say that any specific instance presented as humiliation in the documentary will benefit from being examined in its full context—including the consent of the person involved and what was said by and to all parties before and after.

On the claim that I deliberately use complicated language and concepts in my teachings to make others feel less intelligent.

My teachings are publicly available—for free—across YouTube, in my book ME: A Book About You, and in extensive published audio, video, and written materials. Anyone can decide for themselves how accessible or complicated they are. Spiritual and philosophical teachings are often challenging; that is true of every wisdom tradition, from Zen Buddhism to Christian mysticism to Advaita Vedanta. The accusation that I deliberately make others feel intellectually inferior requires attributing hidden motives to me that have never been demonstrated.

On the claim that I use spiritual concepts to manipulate people, including that I told women I could heal chakras with my genitals, that they had chosen their own oppression, and that I manipulated a woman into leaving her boyfriend.

On the first point: this is denied. I am on the public record in Rolling Stone (April 2022) stating that all sexual relations I have ever had were with full mutual consent. The specific phrasing alleged here— that I “could heal chakras with my genitals” is ridiculous and not a teaching, framing, or statement I use or have ever used.

On the second point: the teaching in question is a non-dual principle about personal sovereignty: that consciousness shapes our experience of reality. This applies universally to all of human life, both the positive and the negative. To twist this into the claim that I told “oppressed women they chose their oppression” is a fundamental mischaracterization that strips a philosophical principle of its context and weaponizes a partial summary.

On the third point: adult women in spiritual communities—like adult women everywhere—make their own choices about romantic partnerships, including ending relationships. Spiritual teachers throughout history have influenced major life decisions of followers; this is true of every religious tradition. The claim that a relationship ending was “manipulation” requires substantially more than the fact that the relationship ended.

On the claim that I maintain multiple girlfriends and do not treat them equally.

I have at various points been openly involved in non-monogamous relationships. All parties involved were adults who knew the structure of those relationships at the time. Polyamory is a legal, consensual relationship form. Specific personal grievances about how private relationships unfolded between adults is not the subject of public statements. I have always been transparent, clear and upfront with women when I did not want to be monogamous with them. If they chose to be in relationship with me regardless, that was their own free choice.

On the claim that I selected girlfriends based on their number of followers in order to increase my own online reach.

The claim that I selected girlfriends based on their number of followers in order to increase my own reach is false. I have been in relationships with a handful of women who had a modest social media following, as well as with women who had none. The accusation requires assuming knowledge of my private motives—motives the people making the claim are not in a position to know.

On the claim that I had a sexual relationship with my marketing employee and committed adultery.

Private, consensual relationships between adults are personal matters and should be clearly distinguished from organizational conduct. Serious public accusations should be supported by verified facts rather than speculation or uncorroborated claims.

On the claim that I chose my wife for the purpose of obtaining a green card.

This is false. I did not enter my marriage for immigration purposes. The claim alleges a federal crime (immigration fraud) without any cited evidence. I ask that this allegation be examined with the seriousness it deserves before being aired as fact.

On the claim that people lose themselves when following me, sometimes to the point of developing suicidal thoughts, becoming estranged from family and friends, and losing all their money.

I can only speak to what I have directly observed over many years. Many people have reported the opposite of the picture being painted: renewed connection with family, improved health and relationships, greater personal clarity, recovery from suicidal thoughts, and a clearer sense of direction in life. Where specific financial losses have been raised, the most prominent case—a voluntary cryptocurrency investment lost in the 2021 market crash—was resolved through mutual settlement, as previously stated. I am not aware of any substantiated evidence that my teachings have directly caused suicidal ideation in anyone. Mental health is complex, and no credible causal link has been established.

On the claim that I, through my words, encouraged suicide (“Wake up to something important. Otherwise, kill yourself”).

I have addressed this on the record in Rolling Stone (April 2022): “The intention behind that statement was simply to encourage people to value their lives (not devalue!), and the precious opportunity we all have of being alive. My intention was to inspire people to prioritize their existence more consciously.” The teaching is about the urgency of meaningful engagement with life. Recasting it as encouragement of self-harm requires ignoring both the on-record explanation and the broader context of fifteen years of teaching about the value and preciousness of life.

On the claim that I abused my cat for my amusement.

This is false. I have never deliberately harmed any animal. I addressed this directly on the record in Rolling Stone (April 2022), where I denied the specific allegation clearly.

On the claim that I asked one of my followers not to speak for a week.

Periods of silence are a common voluntary spiritual practice across many traditions—Vipassana retreats, Zen sesshin, Quaker meeting, monastic life—and have been for thousands of years. If ever a period of silence was suggested, it was 100% voluntary. No one in my community has ever been compelled to refrain from speaking. Anyone who chose to engage in a period of silence as a personal practice was free to opt in or opt out, and discontinue at any time.

On the claim that I told another female follower she needed to lose weight.

I have, on a few rare occasions with close friends—both men and women—gently suggested they consider their body weight when it appeared to be impacting their health, energy, mobility, or overall well-being, or when it seemed connected to unaddressed emotional issues. In those cases, I encouraged them to explore the root cause with self-compassion and offered my support as a friend.

On the claim that people donated substantial sums of money to the “Complete Planetary Enlightenment 2035” project.

Donations to articulated organizational visions—whether religious, philosophical, or charitable—are voluntary contributions made by people who choose to support a mission they believe in. I articulated a vision for collective spiritual awakening. People who donated did so voluntarily, in support of a goal they affirmed. This is no different from donations to any spiritual, religious, or philosophical movement that articulates a vision and invites support.

On the claim that no actual work was being carried out in the office I maintained in Boulder, that nobody was managing the office despite significant amounts of money coming in.

The office space in Boulder was an honest, start-up-like environment which came with the usual start-up-like learning curves. But overall, the office was active, productive, used daily, and well-managed. This was many years ago, but some of us remember daily “huddles,” in-office meetings led by the CEO, and ongoing collaboration on our projects and retreats. The standard for “no actual work” requires specifics about what work was expected and demonstrably not performed.

On the claim that I let people work for me for commercial purposes without paying them.

I stated on the record in Rolling Stone that the team was fully provided for, with finances, housing, and travel arranged and covered. Contributions of time and effort over the years were made voluntarily as part of a shared vision, not as formal employment. People participated in the work by choice, rather than as wage employees.

On the claim that followers were instructed to prevent people from eating and drinking for extended periods of time.

Fasting and intermittent eating are longstanding practices across many spiritual traditions. On the rare occasions I have explored fasting myself, participation in those around me has always been entirely voluntary. No one was ever prevented or discouraged from eating or drinking. Those who chose to fast did so of their own accord and were free to stop at any time. Claims that followers were instructed to prevent others from eating misrepresent voluntary personal practices as coercive restraint. And quite the contrary is true: I have dissuaded people from fasting much more frequently than I have supported or encouraged people in fasting, if I felt their idea behind their intended fast wasn’t balanced, healthy or for the right reasons.

On the claim that followers were required to sleep according to a method developed by me.

This is false. I have explored and shared various practices over the years for the optimization of my own biorhythm, flow-state and well-being, including bi-phasic sleeping schedules, dietary changes, and meditation approaches. This was for myself. Anyone who chose to engage with these or similar schedules because they were inspired or curious did so entirely voluntarily.

On the claim that I have an outstanding tax debt.

Tax matters are private between the individual and the tax authorities. If ever an outstanding tax balance exists, that would be a routine matter between the taxpayer and the authorities. It is not evidence of misconduct.

On the claim that it is unclear where the group is located and that it wishes to remain anonymous.

There is no single physical “group location.” Many members of the broader community maintain privacy about their personal locations after years of online harassment, doxxing attempts, threats, and the 2017 covert infiltration by a journalist using a false identity. Personal privacy is a right, particularly for individuals who have been the subject of online targeting.

On the claim that there are currently children within my group.

Children of community members are family members of those adults. They are not participants in any group or program. Like children in any community—religious or otherwise—they live in their parents’ families and have no formal involvement with my work. I object in the strongest terms to any baseless suggestion that children are in any way at risk in connection with me or this community.

I submit this supplementary response in good faith and ask that it be considered alongside my team’s prior statement. I remain available to address any specific factual claim made by the documentary that I have not been given the opportunity to respond to here.

— Bentinho Massaro