An Initial Response to False Accusations

A response from the MAPLE community

Update September 10th, 2026: Added a section about the motivations of the authors of the post to which this is responding.

Update August 30th, 2026: A commenter wanted clearer answers to a few questions. We added some additional questions and answers here.

---

For years, MAPLE has taken a religious – specifically Buddhist – approach to addressing existential risk. As an organization, we now find ourselves at the center of the most serious debate of the modern age: the debate over the ethics of AI systems. It’s not surprising that we would be attacked at a time like this.

In a recent social media post, a former trainee named Kyle made numerous false accusations about our organization. This document is our initial response.

Did Kyle contact MAPLE or any of its board members before he published his social media post against MAPLE?

No, we were not contacted before his post was published.

Was Kyle paid to write his post?

Yes, Kyle acknowledges receiving money to write his post. Further details on the structure and implications of this below.

Is it true that Soryu is not authorized to teach or run a residential Buddhist training center?

This is false. Before starting MAPLE he was authorized to do so by well-known teachers of the Vipassana and Zen traditions.

Does MAPLE seek to prevent people from leaving the training?

Not at all. At MAPLE, any student can leave whenever they like. To assure ease of “exit” one of our funders created a fund for departing residents which provides them with $1500, no questions asked, upon departure, to help with the transition. All they have to do is request it, and it is structured so that leadership doesn’t see whether they chose to request it or not. At the time each person leaves, we celebrate their time with us, reviewing their achievements and recounting funny experiences together. After leaving, we have helped alumni in finding employment, planning weddings, and finding places to stay while traveling.

Is it harmful to offer elite training?

It is not harmful to offer elite training. This kind of training has been offered around the world for centuries because it is beneficial, both to the trainees, and to those they impact. The world is in crisis, and it is compassionate to offer an elite form of training that can help people to meet the world in its time of need.

Those who provide such training need to have sincerity, commitment, feedback mechanisms, and checks on the integrity of the process. All of this is in place at MAPLE.

Do all significant decisions rest with Soryu Forall?

On the contrary, there is a core leadership team consisting of Executive Director, Assistant Director, Assistant Teacher and Head Monk that, together with Forall, make most of the significant decisions in the organization.

We also have a board of directors which guides strategic direction, provides oversight, and is required to approve decisions related to significant expenditures and the appointment of the executive director.

Note that Forall is away from MAPLE for about half of any given year, working on other important projects and furthering his own training. During that time, significant decisions are regularly made by others. While he is in intensive training, he has no contact with the organization at all, and all significant decisions are made by others.

Is it true that there is no way to give feedback to leadership?

There are opportunities each day to give feedback to leadership. For example, all trainees have tea with the teacher on a rotating cycle. The author of the social media post that this document is responding to chose not to use most of the available feedback opportunities, despite being asked explicitly for feedback. When they did give feedback, it was celebrated and implemented.

Is it true that MAPLE has ignored feedback from previous social media posts and direct communications from former trainees?

This is the opposite of the truth. MAPLE has investigated the claims made in these posts and communications and has considered the feedback implied by them for thousands of hours (roughly two person-years of time). We know of no other organization which considers feedback more carefully. Genuine feedback is part of the culture at MAPLE because we seek to create a training environment that creates real challenge and transformation.

We categorically do not ignore feedback. However, we do not take all feedback as equally valid and in need of being addressed. Many individuals enter the program with the idea that it should be altered to suit their personal preferences or beliefs, without a sufficient understanding of our reasons for setting things up the way we do. The reason is that our training is meant to free you from exactly those things. We listen to but do not implement changes based on these kinds of requests. If we investigate claims and find them to be untrue, then we do not act as if they were true.

How did MAPLE respond to feedback given in the 2022 memo mentioned in the social media post to which this document is responding?

In an 2022 internal memo, a trainee offered four recommendations to leadership based on interviews with former trainees. The recommendations were: additional mental health screening of incoming trainees, better orientation of incoming trainees to MAPLE’s ethos before arrival at MAPLE, additional offboarding procedures, and additional feedback channels for current trainees. We accepted these recommendations and made changes.

At the time, we already had an admissions process in which we asked all training applicants to detail existing or prior mental health issues as part of the written application process. We also already interviewed incoming applicants by phone or video call. However, several applicants omitted relevant mental health information when asked in the written application. We changed the process to more thoroughly communicate that reporting pre-existing mental health issues would not automatically disqualify applicants from the training, and to more aggressively seek out details of mental health issues alluded to in phone screens but not mentioned in writing.

Beyond this report, over many years, changes have been made repeatedly in response to feedback, including changes in the schedule, the creation and then dismantling of a two-tiered training protocol, bridging to adjacent groups for collaborations.

An interesting example was adding circling and other similar practices at the request of trainees, only to find this caused problems. Therefore, we removed these practices and many of these issues vanished. We implemented some changes in teaching style, approach and frequency, but after exploring the suggestions for over a year, concluded that the original more traditional style was preferred.

Were people harmed at MAPLE?

Some people who trained here say yes. People have left MAPLE in real pain, and we don’t dispute their experience of that pain. People often give accounts of their own suffering, and those accounts can sometimes be used fruitfully to move towards resolution.

However, in order to resolve suffering, one must identify its causes, and do something about it. Therefore when we receive reports of painful experiences, both in the training and after, we must (and do) investigate the causes of that.

We investigate such things constantly. It is our bread and butter as an organization. We live, work, and meet together, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that the main topic of the discussions to which we give the majority of our lives is the question of the effectiveness of the training, and its impact on trainees and the world.

We love everyone here, and we continue to love those who have attacked us. We are very concerned about their well-being and listen to everything they say, with great interest and care. Everyone’s physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being in the MAPLE community is constantly taken into account, and adjustments are made regularly to support them.

We have given an astonishing level of attention to the specific claims aired online and in public over the past six years. These questions can’t be settled by feelings alone – ours or anyone’s. “I feel I was harmed” is the beginning of an inquiry, not the end of one. The same is true of “We don’t know of anyone we harmed.” Both deserve investigation rather than deference. We understand that this is difficult for most people reading this online, since there is no way for them to gather evidence.

But just to reiterate our own findings on the question of harm: we know of no examples of people that were harmed at MAPLE. Many people have experienced pain at MAPLE, or after training at MAPLE. We do know of people who have gained attention and resources by claiming that they were harmed at MAPLE. We continue to investigate these questions.

We are constantly changing our training methods. We change the schedule. We change the meditation instruction. We change the org chart. We change the bread recipe. We do this because it is wonderful to discover that you’re doing something in a non-ideal way. It’s empowering to make such a discovery. One of the main shifts that takes place as we train is that we move from believing that it is safe or enjoyable to be right, to seeing that it is safe and enjoyable to be wrong.

Believe it or not, we would love to discover some issue or decision on which we are mistaken. To discover your own specific mistakes is empowering. The personality type that makes up the majority of the trainee population at MAPLE is highly oriented towards self-reflection and self-improvement. We want the power to make a change in ourselves so that people are not harmed. That aspiration is the basis of our lives.

MAPLE’s ethical standards are very high, and everyone follows a strict ethical code of non-harm, which we regularly review and enforce, and there are consequences for violating the code. Anyone in a leadership position is held to a higher ethical standard than those not in leadership. Soryu Forall is scrutinized the most out of anyone in the organization.

What is the power dynamic in the teacher-student relationship at MAPLE?

In the teacher-student relationship at MAPLE, the student has the primary power. The student chooses the teacher and chooses how much or little to follow the teacher’s teaching.

An analogy used in the Sutras is that of a patient and a doctor. The patient has the primary power because they choose the doctor and choose how much or little to follow the doctor’s prescription.

Just like a doctor’s job is to help the patient heal, a teacher’s job is to support the student’s path. The student’s needs determine Forall’s response.

In terms of this power dynamic, most students hold this power over the teacher with care. But a few—about 1%—use it in an attempt to dominate them. They may try to force them to be their father, mother, best friend or suitor. They may stalk them or threaten them. These are all normal behaviors from people with certain psychological issues. They are forgiven but not tolerated.

In today’s culture, the capacity for a student to attack a teacher in public forums and to have the attack assumed to be true places enormous power in the hands of the student. The teacher has no such power. Consider how it would play out for a teacher to attack a student on a social media site in a way that would damage the rest of their lives. It would look absurd, and rightly so.

Is MAPLE a primarily hierarchical organization?

No. The org chart is quite flat. We regularly have whole-organization meetings in which everybody’s views are taken into account.

One of the great achievements of monasteries is integrating hierarchy and equality into one system, and MAPLE follows this example. MAPLE is in fact a place of radical equality. We listen to each person and spend time considering their needs. Even guests and novice trainees can walk in, give feedback, and make suggestions that we take seriously enough to enact. The moment someone walks in, the whole community adjusts to make a space for them personally. But there are some who take advantage of this to try to make themselves the center of the community. We do not allow this, or give such people power. Those who care for the whole community and all living things are given power and responsibility.

Is MAPLE secretive?

Like most organizations, we preserve our intellectual property. However, we are very happy to share how we do things with the world. We invite everyone to come and see for themselves. Please join us for lunch at noon any day. You can RSVP here. Another way to see what we do is this video.

Do Soryu and MAPLE have unexamined blindspots or shadows?

This is an accusation that anyone can say about anyone, so we need to investigate specific examples. Soryu has spent his life working on his blindspots and shadows, continues to do so under advanced masters of various traditions, and teaches others how to work on their own blindspots and shadows. What is different about MAPLE and Soryu is our unusual willingness and excitement around examining our own blindspots and shadows, and our commitment to a tradition that gives effective tools for doing so.

Has Soryu said that he is the only trustworthy person?

This is the opposite of the truth. He regularly praises other teachers from various traditions, both contemporary–e.g. Pa-Auk Sayadaw, Thich Nhat Hanh, Kyabje Dagpo Rinpoche –and historical–e.g. Nagarjuna, St. John of the Cross, Fools Crow. He also often publicly praises members of this community for acts of good judgment. Furthermore, he teaches that you can only trust someone else as much as you trust yourself, because without self-trust how could you trust your choice to trust someone else?

Are people at MAPLE brainwashed?

The central aspect of the training at MAPLE, and in fact spiritual training in general, is to question assumptions. No one needs to believe anything Soryu says to train here. On the contrary, each person is encouraged to question him and is given daily opportunities to do so.

Each person at MAPLE has left the mainstream ideology. In doing so, they have demonstrated their ability to question assumptions, to reject authority, to avoid groupthink, to escape brainwashing, etc. The organization is full of independent thinkers who demand real answers. The training is set up in order to, and Soryu teaches in a way designed to, help everyone to question what they haven’t yet questioned. This is done out of compassion and courage.

Do people at MAPLE question Soryu?

Soryu is actually questioned more than anyone else in the organization. He is present with the group for many hours out of every day, lives his whole life in plain view of the MAPLE community for many months out of every year, and teaches in such a way that doubts are surfaced. It is therefore possible both to observe his conduct in detail, and to get access to him to ask questions.

New trainees – people in their first few years of training – often believe that they alone seriously question Soryu. People often say to him, “I am the only one who questions you.” This turns out not to be true. The longer one is in the training environment, the more one realizes that everyone questions Soryu. The training is premised on the idea that you should question him. If you don’t doubt him, you’ll never know whether he offers true insight.

Did Soryu threaten to leave the community?

We’re not sure what this is referring to. It might be in reference to both or either (or neither) of these two occurrences:

1. At one time, MAPLE had to leave the place it was renting due to the landlord engaging in illegal activities. Soryu was concerned that we wouldn’t be able to find another place quickly enough so he offered to the group the opportunity to use the money we had to go and train anywhere in the world for 3 years—during which time Soryu would find a new place to rent. At the end of the 3 years they would all get back together. The group declined the offer and requested that he continue to teach them.

2. At another time, while Soryu was away traveling, the leadership team tried to convert the entire organization away from Buddhism. When Soryu returned, he saw this and told the leaders that if they wanted to go in this direction, they could, and that he would go do something else. They were unwilling to take on the financial responsibility of the organization and refused the offer.

In neither of these cases was Soryu threatening to leave the community. He was caring for the community by putting himself aside and offering them the freedom to choose their own path.

Are the times it takes to finish chores being recorded and then posted?

Yes, we are proud to have recorded and analyzed the time it takes to do chores so we can streamline the process as much as possible. Specifically, we are interested in analyzing the correlation between how deeply someone is practicing and how they do chores, in order to help people practice throughout the day.

Is MAPLE willing to sacrifice people’s well-being for the benefit of the mission?

No, we’re not. On the contrary we set an example for the world of a place that promotes each person’s well-being. Aspects include:

• Friendship - people develop close friendships here from activities such as working together, discussing challenging and significant topics, supporting each other with personal growth. Even those who attack us say that the hardest thing was leaving a community of people who love them.

• Good sleep - while the schedule takes getting used to in the beginning, over time many people report having better quality sleep and energy than before they started training here. Many people arrive with unhealthy sleep habits, which if not quickly resolved, can result in problems.

• Eating well - we provide everyone with healthy plant-based meals made with fresh produce that are local and organic. Meals are made with love by people who care about everyone’s happiness and freedom of mind.

• Exercise - trainees exercise at least six days a week. At least two occasions are group exercises such as ultimate frisbee and weight-training.

• Meditation - everyday there are three hours or more of formal meditation practice time, where we can cultivate wholesome qualities such as lovingkindness, compassion, joy and equanimity.

• Life purpose - most importantly, people are encouraged to fulfill their highest aspirations.

Is Soryu abusive?

The question itself is somewhat absurd. The answer, however, is unequivocally no. The term “abuse” has formal definitions. It simply does not apply here.

What is your understanding of Kyle’s motivations for writing his piece?

Kyle wrote at least some of his piece during a month-long writers retreat called Inkhaven. This writers retreat is run by an organization called Lightcone Infrastructure, which was created to run the popular AI safety website Lesswrong. Kyle posted his piece on Lesswrong.

In Kyle’s piece, he acknowledge 14 individuals who provided funding and reviewed drafts of his writing. Of these, 13 have an account on Lesswrong, and 8 are affiliated with Lightcone Infrastructure. Furthermore, among the three people that Kyle thanked for providing funding (“Writing this letter took months of full-time work, and I’m grateful to the few friends who covered my basic life expenses so that I could do it: Ben Pace, Oliver Habryka, …”), the first two are the first and second in command at Lightcone Infrastructure. We therefore interpret this piece as a product of Lightcone Infrastructure. We don’t doubt that Kyle wrote some or all of the piece and was personally motivated to do so. Our theory is that, in addition to that, a significant amount of the real motivation and impetus for the production and publishing of this piece came from Lightcone Infrastructure.

Lightcone and MAPLE are both involved in a massive societal debate over the future ethics of AI systems. That debate currently has the attention of hundreds of millions of people, and holds at stake trillions of dollars. These two organizations are therefore at the center of the central ethical debate of our time, and it’s worth taking extremely seriously the view that Kyle’s piece is best understood in the context of that debate.

MAPLE was created to offer a revolutionary Buddhist approach to addressing the destruction of life on Earth. Over the past 15 years, MAPLE has offered extremely pointed critiques of the AI safety community’s approach to AI ethics. The AI safety community traces many of its cultural roots to Lesswrong and the surrounding community. Lesswrong, then, is one of the main venues where disaffected MAPLE alumni have attacked us.

It looks to us as if the main response to the critiques we’ve offered has been a series of posts making specious claims about MAPLE.

Our understanding of Kyle’s post is that it is motivated by resistance to our critiques of the AI safety community, and by resistance to our critiques of modernity’s entire approach to caring for life on Earth. We’re open to critiques of our critiques, but calling us a cult is a very low grade kind of response. It is the ad hominem of inter-organization disagreement.

We do not say this to de-legitimate the mere existence of an organized group attempting to respond to MAPLE. We do suggest that the real issue is not yet being discussed.

Ben Pace, who Kyle thanked twice in his acknowledgements section (“Finally, my deepest gratitude to Ben Pace. This letter would not exist without him: he read draft after draft over many months, his questions made it clearer and more honest, and his support never wavered.”) talked with Soryu in the summer of 2024. In the conversation, Soryu said we need wisdom and compassion to use AI. Ben said that in the end, only intelligence is meaningful, so it’s ultimately good to kill less intelligent life forms if doing so results in highly intelligent life forms spreading through the universe. It’s hard to think of a better summary of the current positions of these two organizations.

What about all the questions you haven’t answered here?

MAPLE has invested thousands of hours in internal investigations of claims made by former trainees, and is happy to turn those internal investigations into further published materials like the questions and answers in this document. However, to do so requires significant resources. Just as Kyle was funded to write his recent review of MAPLE, we are open to receiving funds to continue our response project.

As noted above MAPLE has put thousands of hours into investigating allegations. For any organization, but particularly for an organization such as ours, responding to broad claims such as the ones we’ve responded to above, is a time- and resource-intensive activity. We have done the internal work of assuring due diligence concerning the worst accusations. But we have not created, until now public-facing responses to those seeking to litigate in the court of public opinion.

While an attack piece can be written by one person working alone, an organizational response piece almost always requires input from stakeholders across an organization. This is because refuting or confirming claims generally requires information from every area within the organization, and when the organization in question consists of just 25 or so people, and when many of those people feel deeply hurt by the attack, and deeply invested in a response, a major response project is almost certain to draw in the attention of the whole organization. The opportunity cost of embarking on such a project is therefore quite high.

Our current organizational focus is on causes of existential crises. There is a large cognitive and operational distance between this focus area and the project of engaging with Kyle and others on LessWrong. We mention this because it further highlights the logistical difficulty we face in producing a comprehensive long form response.

A suggestion we have received many times is to hire an outside consultant, or other outside party, to conduct and write up such an investigation. Unfortunately, Kyle’s specific claims are of a certain type that we expect would prove quite difficult for outside parties to untangle. Consider a consultant attempting to determine whether MAPLE is or is not primarily a hierarchical organization. They could look at our org chart. It is relatively flat. Would this satisfy Kyle? We suspect not. Alternatively, they could join us for a week and record how often we meet in groups of what size and which people. They would find that we meet constantly as an entire organization, including everyone from the teacher down to newly arrived guests. Would that satisfy Kyle? Again, we suspect not, because he already spent time living with us and already has this information. A satisfying response requires a deep understanding of our system and the reasons that we have put it together in the way that we have, in such a way that an outside consultant is unlikely to be able to correctly analyze and explain.

Moreover, we have tried working with third party consultants dozens of times in the past, on many different kinds of projects, and they have consistently failed to understand the purpose and constitution of our organization. It has always been an enormous time sink.

Nevertheless, we do have an interest in responding to these claims. We could make time to do so, but without specific funding for such a project, we could not justify the investment. We are not actively fundraising for this project, but if approached by a funder, we would be receptive.

---

The following question were added August 30th, 2026 at the request of a commenter.

Does Soryu abuse people?

No.

Does Soryu insult people?

No.

Does Soryu engage in collective punishment?

No.

Does Soryu or guilt-trip people who try to leave?

No.

Has Soryu ever made everyone stand up and stare at his face for over an hour because someone nodded off during one of his lectures?

No.

Are there examples of the group all disagreeing with Forall and the organization going in the direction of the rest of the group?

Yes. One example is already given in an answer to a different question above. Here it is again:

At one time, MAPLE had to leave the place it was renting due to the landlord engaging in illegal activities. Soryu was concerned that we wouldn’t be able to find another place quickly enough so the suggested that the community might split up and use some of the organization’s little remaining money to each go and train elsewhere for 3 years. During this time Soryu would find a new place to rent. At the end of the 3 years everyone would get back together. The group declined the offer and requested that he continue to teach them, and that is indeed the direction that the organization went in.