Don't Fall for the New Age Trickster

On Charles Eisenstein, spiritual narcissists & the dangers of New Age grifters

Some time ago, I wrote about our propensity for hero worship in times of great uncertainty, even when it is most harmful to us:

Kill your heroes and save yourself

In the piece, I brought up a few examples of demagogues and tech oligarchs who are propped up as saviour-like figures. The piece below, which I consider to be a loose follow-up, focuses on a different kind of public figure who may not be as well known in the mainstream, but who has amassed a significant following in certain pseudo-spiritual alternative spaces—and who, I should add, has largely evaded critique within these spaces, though there are some exceptions, namely among New Age/spirituality skeptics.

Specifically, I’m referring to Charles Eisenstein, a ‘thought leader,’ philosopher, and public speaker who, among his newer followers, is known for his commentary on Covid and later as senior advisor for RFK Jr.’s 2024 presidential campaign.

---

I first came across Charles Eisenstein’s work in 2019 through his book The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible. I hadn’t heard of Eisenstein before so I didn’t have much in the way of expectations. The book turned out to be so compelling I devoured it in a week. Shortly after, I read Climate: A New Story, which also deeply resonated with me.

Eisenstein’s framework of the Story of Separation vs. the Story of Interbeing felt like the ‘aha’ moment I needed, especially after being burned out and alienated by years of traditional forms of activism. I wanted to contribute to this ‘More Beautiful World’ whatever that might look like. So I decided to join NAAS (A New and Ancient Story Network), an online community created by Charles and moderated by his ex-wife Patsy. I thought perhaps this would be my opportunity to help make this more beautiful world happen in a way that felt more meaningful and tangible. Amid the Covid chaos, I also thought this would be a place of refuge at a time of great instability and personal anguish.

NAAS’s central tenet is based on the ‘principle of reverence’, which Patsy defined as the “awareness that one is addressing sacred beings.” Simply put, it’s about treating others with respect.

Upon joining, I very quickly realized that the whole ‘reverence’ thing was superficial.

I had unknowingly joined during a schism, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise. There had been a huge falling out on the topic of gender ideology which fractured the community, leading some members to voluntarily leave while others were banned for wrongspeak.

One member reported feeling “too disturbed to even share [her] views.” She wasn’t referring to people who were banned, but to those who expressed concerns about gender ideology. It wasn’t that she was truly ‘disturbed,’ it was that she wasn’t used to encountering people who challenged her worldview. One member likened any form of criticism to “punching people in the face” and must therefore “be removed.” Others labeled critiques of gender ideology as “violent” and violating “basic human dignity”—These same people demanded that all opinions be welcomed so long as they didn’t violate the “divinity of other people,” whatever that meant.

After the purge, Patsy, in her saccharine, flowery rhetoric wrote, “…As we continue to move forward in the light of integrity, more resonance will be enforced and attract similar vibes.”

In other words, good vibes only or you will be booted.

Charles himself remained silent.

While pseudo-intellectualizing about femininity from a male perspective, he allowed women to be silenced on his own platform. In his writing, he laments how women have been relegated to ‘second-class status’ but ignores how gender ideology actively reinforces this. Nowhere does he acknowledge the issue of trans-identified men occupying women’s sex-based spaces—shelters, restrooms, changing rooms, prisons. To Charles and his followers, this isn’t a concern. And if it is a concern to you, well, maybe you’re just not being reverent enough.

As far as I’m aware, he still refuses to address gender ideology, despite speaking at length about womanhood and femininity.

Charles reminds me of the men I encountered in progressive spaces—the ones who proudly call themselves feminists—they attend all the marches and adopt the faux progressive jargon, but they turn out to be the most sexist and porn-sick of them all. His view of femininity is still viewed through the narrow lens of the male gaze. He sees women as relational to men, not as independent, autonomous beings who exist alongside them. It is through men that he defines women, and subsequently femininity. An example of this is written all over his piece on feminine power.

On the NAAS forum, one member described the transgender movement as a “rite-of-passage” that needs to be “honored.” Another member shared a post about her son identifying as trans and she was showered with praise for her and her son’s bravery. One member waxed poetic about people getting in the way of the “evolution” of humans, of which they evidently believe that being transgender falls somewhere on this evolution continuum. The very same members who praised this mother are the same ones who led a witch hunt on the women critiquing gender ideology.

To anyone with a shred of common sense, this is just misogyny repackaged.

---

Beyond gender ideology, other patterns emerged—ones I recognized from the social justice/New Age space.

Much like the social justice zealots I’ve encountered in the past, Charles and his cult-like followers are passionate about all things Indigenous, a common byproduct of being a middle-to-upper class suburbanite riddled with white guilt.

As is common among this crowd, they subscribed to the noble savage myth, ironically reinforcing the very stereotypes they claim to oppose. Their romanticized, often nebulous, notions of Indigenous traditions and rituals are not only unhelpful, but often inaccurate. They’d regurgitate concepts like ‘Two-Spirit,’ but filtered through the white, Western lens (unsurprising given the history of the term). In his writing, Eisenstein often rarely goes into detail about his Indigenous anecdotes, except for offering very brief, surface-level stories that pull at the reader’s heart strings.

Challenging these stereotypes would have made no difference because according to Charles and his followers, we are all constrained by the limitations of our own lived experience, and everyone’s individual experience is valid and cannot be challenged, except in few select cases, where some experiences are seen as more valid, thereby reinforcing the reductive ladder of oppression.

On the Dangers of the Lived Experience

The ‘lived experience’ is a byproduct of cultural relativism, the notion that all cultures, beliefs, and traditions—no matter how harmful—are seen as valid and should not be judged or condemned.

What is Truth?

In this case, relativism is cloaked in New Age-speak, and on the forum, it included jargon like “soul frequency” and “breathing in peace” and “softening of the space.” Half of the time I wasn’t even sure if members themselves knew what they were saying.

The space was steeped in ‘Be Kind’ ideology, which had a way of silencing criticism and suppressing critical thinking. It demands that you ignore your intuition even if something feels off. Any form of discomfort is deemed harmful and must therefore be snuffed out. You must be positive, avoid wounds, and banish negativity at all costs—a phenomenon also known as spiritual bypassing.

---

While many members on the forum were destructive in their own ways, there was one whose behaviour was especially concerning.

This member penned an open letter titled ‘Ode to Charles,’ referring to him as ‘My Dear One.’ I won’t share the full post because I feel it would be inappropriate, but I want to note the following red flags to show how vulnerable people can engage in hero worship.

She describes how Charles loved her, fed her, held her (and her children), comforted her, and expected nothing in return. Charles came with a “love offering for all of us” and according to her, Charles “risked it all” for the rest of us unworthy ones. She likened him to a saviour-like figure, and even capitalized “He” and “Him” as if he were a deity.

She admitted to calling Charles “obsessively” and she’d show up at his house with her children, unannounced. In her letter she expressed deep worry that she might “annoy” him too much and that he might think she needed professional help.

She made assumptions about how other people viewed him, citing other people kept him at a distance because they think Charles is “too great and masterful to approach” and that others may see their intelligence as “inferior” to his.

She also revealed that Charles provided her with financial assistance. Certainly I respect Charles for helping a friend in need, but this friend has revealed herself to have a highly dependent personality, often turning to Charles for strength instead of herself. This woman was also on the board of Charles’s now-defunct non-profit.

I bring this up not to shame or ridicule these members, but to offer a glimpse of the kind of person that might fall for pseudo-spiritual gurus — clichéd yes, but it is well-established that the most vulnerable people are often the most easily fooled. And this woman indicated in so many ways how susceptible she is to influence. Like her, there are a lot of lost and untethered people out there right now, desperate for someone to save them, and a lot of grifters waiting in the wings to exploit them, many of whom occupy the New Age space, and this is the real danger.

---

After my short-lived experience on NAAS, I revisited Charles’ writings and noticed some things I had previously overlooked.

I came to realize that Charles is someone without firm convictions or beliefs in, well, anything. His lack of conviction allows him to easily slip in and out of different personas. He cleverly positions himself as being on Both Sides on various issues as a way to remove personal responsibility and shield himself from potential criticism, particularly on contentious topics like Israel and Palestine. This is why he was able to seamlessly align himself with RFK Jr. Like a seasoned politician, he dutifully served as RFK Jr.’s senior advisor, clinging to the notion of neutrality while flitting around difficult issues.

This is also why he was able to shamelessly shill for greenwashed ecovillages™ such as Ecovilla San Mateo, a luxury ecovillage in Costa Rica. In a post that reads more like a sales pitch, Charles tries to sell a piece of this community at a very high cost—$100k to $450k per plot—to his impressionable followers.

Co-founded by Stephen Brooks, Ecovilla San Mateo is an extension of the existing LaEcovilla ecovillage in Costa Rica, which came to fruition thanks to wealthy investors who acquired hundreds of hectares of lush Costa Rican land and converted it into high-end luxurious housing.

For those who don’t know, Stephen Brooks is a self-described “world-renowned ethnobotanist” though he is entirely self-learned. He claims to be passionate about sustainable systems, permaculture, and botany, yet his entire business model consists of importing and growing rare non-native crops in unsupported ecosystems. Of course this is completely antithetical to core permaculture principles.

Brooks’s appearance on The Proof with Simon Hill podcast further exposed his true character. Brooks repeatedly expressed his interest in pandering to the elite to support his for-profit business ventures. He repeatedly boasted about his one-time appearance on an unknown Netflix show and name dropping Zac Efron at every possible opportunity. True to form, Brooks also co-founded Envision Festival, a wellness festival in Costa Rica that developed a reputation for being a mecca of consumerism, hypocrisy, and gentrification. Brooks is the archetypal New Age tech bro—he goes to Burning Man and suddenly claims to be enlightened.

Brooks is, by all accounts, a pseudo-spiritual fraud, not unlike Charles.

Eisenstein, Brooks, and their followers all subscribe to the ‘Love and Light’ ideology selling an idyllic, utopian image of the world exclusively for those with deep pockets. It is clear that their version of utopia conveniently exists only in exclusive, exotic communities made and built for the wealthy. There’s no amount of ‘Love and Light’ rhetoric that can disguise what is ultimately just another gentrified community for wealthy foreigners.

To add insult to injury, a commenter on Charles’s post revealed that an Ecovilla sales rep informed him that Charles would allegedly be receiving a commission for promoting the development, which Charles did not disclose. He also added an affiliate link, which he did not clarify in his post. As far as I’m aware, Charles hasn’t responded to this claim.

---

Charles often invokes his self-described naïvety as a way to curry good will with his followers. He is skilled in couching controversial issues with his brand of naïvety and issuing addendums like “Don’t take my word for it, though!” allowing him to feign ignorance if his commentary is poorly received.

So while he often reminds us that he doesn’t-know-much-so-don’t-take-my-word-for-it, he does indeed have a lot of opinions and he is willing to share these opinions through various avenues. He is able to occupy positions, some of which have been highly financially lucrative, that allows him to bump elbows with the affluent like the Kennedy dynasty and multi-millionaire entrepreneurs, while also downplaying his influence and presenting himself as a humble nobody.

It’s as if he is constantly walking a tight rope—straddling the line between different personas, beliefs, and ways of being, afraid to lose his balance and fall flat on either side.

Despite years spent writing about moving past the Story of Separation, Charles himself has fallen prey to it. While Charles lives in the Story of Separation, others are walking the walk. People are breaking bread in community halls, bartering with neighbours, and engaging in grassroots efforts to become more self-reliant, autonomous, and community-focused. Groups like Braver Angels are working to depolarize politics, while cooperatives like Life.School.House are moving towards a barter-based system offering services in exchange for homemade goods.

Moving towards ‘Interbeing’ isn’t about fleeing to far flung countries to live and play in multi-million dollar playgrounds. Efforts are being made by ordinary people on the ground in their communities every single day—the work may not be as as glamorous, but it’s no less effective. None of these grifters—whether they be tech bros or New Age gurus—will save us, and it’s imperative that we start coming to terms with that fact.

And what about the NAAS network? Apparently they charge a membership fee now.