‘Twisted Yoga’ and the Story We Are Told
For those of us who have been part of a yoga school using the teachings of the yoga teacher Gregorian Bivolaru, the documentary series Twisted Yoga premiered on Apple TV on March 13, 2026 is not simply a controversial portrayal of our community. It is a deeply distorted one. The series presents itself as an investigation that reveals hidden truths, but what it actually offers is a carefully constructed narrative that reshapes events, teachings, and personal experiences into a story of manipulation and abuse. For people who know the community from the inside, the gap between the reality we experience and the picture shown in the documentary is striking.
The narrative itself is not new. For decades, similar stories have circulated in the media: a spiritual group that appears inspiring at first is gradually exposed as manipulative or dangerous. Twisted Yoga docuseries follows this familiar script almost perfectly. Viewers are invited to believe that they are uncovering a hidden truth, while the story quietly guides them toward a conclusion that has largely been decided in advance.
Media Spreading Fake News
In September 2024, Human Rights Without Frontiers Director Willy Fautré presented a paper at the Faith & Freedom Summit IV in the Latin American Parliament, Panama City, to the attending politicians, diplomats, and scholars how media cooperate with biased prosecutors in spreading fake news about groups stigmatized as “cults”:
The right to freedom of thought, of opinion, and of expression is a sacred value that must be protected against winds and tides in dictatorial and totalitarian regimes. In democratic countries, media freedom also needs to be cherished and preserved from all forms of interference and takeover by political parties or financial powers.
Media outlets and journalists in our democracies are expected to respect ethical norms as enshrined in their professional charters, something similar to the Hippocratic oath for doctors. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, especially when they cover issues related to religious minorities whose doctrines, unconventional thoughts, and life practices deviate from mainstream thinking, mindset, and behaviors. In such cases the temptation of sensationalism often prevails, usually for mere commercial reasons.
[…]
The categorization of some religious, spiritual or belief groups as “cults,” additionally qualified as dangerous, harmful, or totalitarian is first of all the work of former disgruntled members of such movements who want to take revenge.
Professor of Sociology Massimo Introvigne further points out:
Media in general have a bias against groups labeled as ‘cults’ and rely heavily on ‘apostates,’ a technical word used by sociologists that is not synonym of ‘ex-member’ but identifies the small minority of ex-members who become militant opponents of the groups they have left (most ex-members don’t). Television knows that illicit sex always titillates and sells, and this is even more true for the combination between religion and illicit sex (even if they are only accusations).
The producers of the TV shows claim that they give voice to victims of sexual abuse by religious leaders. This is legitimate and also important, if the victims are real. However, it is a very different story, if the claims are subject of an ongoing court case. Further, if the shows stereotype and generalize, further pain is inflicted on those who want to remain in the religious movements and are personally not guilty nor accused of any crime.
Introvigne points out that these are not theoretical risks. There are “hundreds of cases of discrimination at schools and on the workplace of members of groups TV series and media have stigmatized as ‘cults.’” (Massimo Introvigne, “Is Netflix a Threat to Religious Liberty?”)
This series of articles takes a closer look at how that story is built. Instead of debating individual accusations, we examine the documentary itself—its structure, its narrative choices, and the way it guides viewers toward particular interpretations. When we analyze the film in this way, a clear pattern begins to emerge. What appears at first glance to be an investigation turns out to rely heavily on storytelling techniques that shape how viewers interpret what they see.
Part 2 of this article series shows how the documentary constructs its narrative through a set of recognizable techniques. Emotional framing primes viewers to expect wrongdoing before the story even begins. Personal testimonies are arranged in a storyline that turns early enthusiasm into later disillusionment. Spiritual teachings are reinterpreted as tools of manipulation, and unfamiliar practices are presented in ways that make them appear disturbing or suspicious.
Part 3 reveals another dimension of the story: the role of omission. Important context about the teachings disappears. The voices of thousands of current practitioners are largely absent. A complex legal history is simplified into a straightforward narrative of guilt. Events that remain contested are presented as if they were final proof. In other words, the story is shaped not only by what is shown but also by what is quietly left out.
Part 4 then places these observations in a broader perspective. Similar narrative patterns appear again and again in media portrayals of unconventional spiritual communities. In the UK, Sweden, Denmark, and elsewhere, podcasts and documentaries have presented the same community through strikingly similar storylines. Over time, this has created a recognizable media genre: the exposé of the dangerous spiritual movement. One way to understand this recurring pattern is to see it as part of a deeper cultural tension—a conflict between strongly secular assumptions and forms of spirituality that seek to permeate everyday life rather than remain confined to private belief.
Manipulating the Viewers Toward a Predetermined Conclusion
Perhaps the most striking aspect of this entire process is the paradox it reveals. The documentary repeatedly accuses the yoga school of manipulating its members and shaping how they perceive reality. Yet the techniques used in the documentary perform a very similar function for the audience. Through emotional framing, selective evidence, and strategic omission, viewers themselves are guided toward a predetermined interpretation. In trying to expose manipulation, the documentary ends up demonstrating how easily public perception can be manipulated. This paradox stands at the center of the analysis that follows.