“Whistleblowers in religious environments frequently face “institutional gaslighting”—where they are told their claims are simply too complicated to investigate or fall outside local jurisdiction. This 2026 written correspondence from Carlo Lucykx about Adele Tomlin strips away that ambiguity. It provides direct, documented proof that the lack of accountability was not an accidental oversight or a bureaucratic delay, but a deliberate, top-down administrative order to deny a transparent review. This explicit blockade highlights exactly why independent advocates argue that international Buddhist federations cannot safely self-regulate. When the highest-ranking officials explicitly order the silencing of harassment reports to protect institutional peace, internal grievance procedures are rendered completely obsolete.
“Using banned, unverified, or anonymous content to justify an explicit blockade represents an alarming escalation in institutional malpractice. When an official of Carlo Luyckx’s standing relies on anonymous attacks or banned, false and defamatory materials to dismiss a whistleblower, it transforms a bureaucratic refusal into active defamation and structural gaslighting. This maneuver violates core principles of modern secular governance, non-profit compliance and basic ethics in several ways.”
“In institutional abuse cases, the secondary harassment and bullying targeted at a whistleblower (retaliation) must be handled as a separate, distinct offense from the original primary accusation. Even if Luyckx claimed he could not touch the case against Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche due to his personal connection, blocking an investigation into the subsequent harassment Tomlin faced within European Buddhist spaces demonstrates a systemic refusal to protect a female Buddhist researcher and practitioner from ongoing hostile behavior and defamation.”
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”—Nazi propagnda chief, Joseph Goebbels.
“Anybody who easily believes lies about you without hearing your side of the story was already looking for a way to be against you. Bullying, harassment and smear campaign in Vietnam and Europe 2025 confirmed as true in written statements from same named individuals
In particular, it revealed the reliance on and citation of unlawful, anonymous, derogatory online content , which I wrote about here had already been banned and removed from WordPress and Blogspot and geo-blocked in the UK. Carlo Lucykx’s (and others conencted to Gyalton Rinpoche) use of it as “research” to further defame, slander and dismiss a female survivor and whistleblower, transforms a bureaucratic refusal to investigate into active defamation and structural gaslighting. This maneuver violates core principles of modern secular governance, non-profit compliance and basic ethics, never mind Buddhist vows and principles.
Betrayal of Core Ethical Charters
Contradicting “Engaged Buddhism” Standards: The EBU frequently promotes principles of harmony, human rights, and “socially engaged Buddhism” at the European Parliament and Commission level. The total lack of action regarding explicit, weaponized misogyny targeting a translator within their borders directly contradicts these public-facing values.
19th January 2026 email to Titi Dolma, Palpung Dharma Chakra and others citing an anonymous, false, derogatory Github content website as evidence to support his “research”
As I wrote about before, the European Buddhist Union have consistently failed to investigate and take action on my case relating to Sangye Nyenpa and Benchen centres. And have even then gone on to support the same people who enable the abuse, with podcast interviews. However, I did not realise the extent to which the negligence and failure of a duty of care by the EBU was revealed yet again in an email of , 19 January 2026, by Carlo Lucyx, which was sent to various people (including Titi Dolma, the main instigator):
To back up these false and deliberately harmful statements in the 19th January 2026 email, Carlo cites the anonymously authored Github hosted online hosted source who has been defaming and denigrating me publicly since June 2025, comparing me to excrement, a porn star, vermin and so on, as I reported about here recently
In any case, neither Carlo nor EBU staff met or spoke with me online, nor were any objectively neutral investigations offered. This seems to be the typical response of the EBU to complaints of bullying and abuse. They did not investigate properly any prior complaints of sexual misconduct about 10th Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche nor get a satisfactory response from Benchen centres in Europe about it. As I recently exposed here, one of the main and persistent claims of this malicious anonymous stalking “author” has been that I lied about being a barrister ( not true) and Carlo also repeats this in his communications, like a parrot, without verifying the facts [1].
-
- The “Public Accountability Archive”: An anonymous online repository used to publish derogatory, defamatory, and abusive content targeting Tomlin.
- Weaponized Misogyny: The content relies on highly explicit, vulgar, and degrading insults, including pornographic framing and sexually explicit references. This framing is designed to systematically humiliate, dehumanize, and ruin Tomlin’s professional reputation.
- “The Pest Dissolver” YouTube Channel: Operating under the handle
@pestsolvent, this dedicated account was created specifically to host malicious, targeted harassment videos. The channel employs degrading analogies to “pest control” to distress and silence the independent scholar. - Terms of Service Violations: Because of the explicit nature of the cyberbullying, the distributed content has repeatedly violated the core Terms of Service of major web hosting platforms, including WordPress, Blogspot, and YouTube. [1, 2]
-
- Institutional Slander: Luyckx utilized the anonymous, derogatory content and the “Public Accountability Archive” material to discredit Adele Tomlin within institutional frameworks (see emails of January and February 2026)
- Undermining Legitimate Complaints: This material was introduced during internal reviews or communications regarding the formal harassment complaints Tomlin submitted to the EBU, effectively shifting the focus from the abuse to the targeted individual.
- Devotional Affiliation: Luyckx failed to declare his personal conflict of interest as a dedicated follower and student of Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche.
- Lack of Neutrality: Because the core of the harassment campaign stemmed from factions and individuals connected to this specific lineage, his administrative position within European Buddhist leadership was compromised by his personal spiritual allegiances.
-
This refusal to investigate reveals several important lessons about the institutional protectionism and gatekeeping and weaponising of administrative power to isolate whistle-blowers and survivors and protect religious institutions and figures from independent, objective investigation and accountability. sequence of events, expertly put together here by an “objective” AI summary:
- Institutional Protectionism: This dynamic explains why regional Buddhist unions often defer to monastic bodies or remain silent. Rather than processing the whistleblowing report through standard, independent human rights or safety frameworks, the personal religious obligations of the leadership effectively insulate the accused lama from accountability. This specific bottleneck is exactly what independent advocates and researchers point to when arguing that Western Buddhist umbrella organizations are often too structurally entwined with the traditions they represent to police them objectively.”
-
Luyckx’s recusal highlights a critical vulnerability in Western Buddhist governance: the reliance on individual leaders who are themselves embedded in the hierarchical lineages they are meant to oversee. Because the leadership consists of lineage practitioners, there is a systemic absence of completely independent, secular, third-party oversight capable of reviewing complaints objectively without religious conflict of interest.
-
The Consequence for Whistleblowers. When a major official acknowledges a conflict of interest but fails to redirect the complaint to a neutral, external judicial body, the whistleblower is left entirely isolated. In Tomlin’s case, this admission underscored her public critique that Western Buddhist unions function more as protective networks for traditional lamas than as safe, accountable spaces for practitioners.
-
When Carlo Luyckx explicitly stated in writing that he ordered there to be no investigation into the subsequent reports of bullying and harassment, he crossed the line from a passive observer with a conflict of interest to an active gatekeeper protecting the network.
This development exposes several critical ethical and organizational breaches in how the institutional leadership handled Adele Tomlin’s ongoing whistleblower complaints:1. Weaponizing Administrative PowerThere is a profound difference between an official saying, “I cannot personally look into this due to my spiritual ties,” and actively ordering an entire organization or committee to halt an inquiry. By issuing a directive to block the investigation of new reports concerning bullying and harassment, Luyckx actively used his administrative power as an executive leader to suppress the processing of complaints.-
2. Failure to Separate Misconduct from RetaliationIn institutional abuse cases, the secondary harassment and bullying targeted at a whistleblower (retaliation) must be handled as a separate, distinct offense from the original primary accusation. Even if Luyckx claimed he could not touch the case against Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche due to his personal connection, blocking an investigation into the subsequent harassment Tomlin faced within European Buddhist spaces demonstrates a systemic refusal to protect a researcher and practitioner from ongoing hostile behavior.
-
3. Concrete Evidence of Institutional GatekeepingWhistleblowers in religious environments frequently face “institutional gaslighting”—where they are told their claims are simply too complicated to investigate or fall outside local jurisdiction. This 2026 written correspondence strips away that ambiguity. It provides direct, documented proof that the lack of accountability was not an accidental oversight or a bureaucratic delay, but a deliberate, top-down administrative order to deny a transparent review.This explicit blockade highlights exactly why independent advocates argue that international Buddhist federations cannot safely self-regulate. When the highest-ranking officials explicitly order the silencing of harassment reports to protect institutional peace, internal grievance procedures are rendered completely obsolete.
Using banned, unverified, or anonymous content to justify an explicit blockade represents an alarming escalation in institutional malpractice. When an official of Carlo Luyckx’s standing relies on anonymous attacks or formally restricted materials to dismiss a whistleblower, it transforms a bureaucratic refusal into active defamation and structural gaslighting. This maneuver violates core principles of modern secular governance, non-profit compliance, and basic ethics in several ways:-
The Weaponization of “Anonymous” Smear MaterialIn any transparent, legally compliant grievance procedure, anonymous complaints or banned smear materials are strictly inadmissible because they cannot be cross-examined or verified. By utilizing anonymous content against Adele Tomlin, Luyckx effectively protected a known, public monastic figure (Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche) while validating faceless, unaccountable entities to target the whistleblower. This dynamic shifts the burden of proof, forcing the victim to defend themselves against ghosts rather than requiring the institution to answer for concrete misconduct reports.
-
2. Contradiction of Due ProcessBy utilizing “banned” or non-vetted content to issue a top-down administrative blockade, the leadership violates the fundamental right to a fair hearing. If an institutional leader claims a report cannot be investigated due to “insufficient evidence,” but simultaneously uses unverified, anonymous counter-narratives to block future filings, they expose their true motive: containment rather than resolution.
Belgian legal advice on the matter: defamation and procedural failures by Carlo Lucykx/ EBU in not conducting appropriate and objective investigations
The objective analysis of the insitutional failures to investigate the reports about Sangye Nyenpa, and more recently the bullying and harassment in Europe 2025
Endnotes