“Palpung Thubten Choling monastery, formerly known as Kagyu Thubten Choling (KTC), faced allegations of a four-decade pattern of sexual assault by Lama Norlha Rinpoche. Lama Norlha, who founded  KTC in Wappingers Falls, New York State, died in 2018.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court by three women in 2023, highlights a series of alleged abuses dating back to the 1980s and implicates Norlha and monastery leaders in perpetuating these acts. 

Among those named in connection to the enabling of the alleged abuse included Tai Situ Rinpoche and Mingyur Rinpoche, two prominent teachers in the Karma Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism.”

The sexual misconduct allegations concerning Lama Norlha Rinpoche at Palpung Thubten Choling—formerly Kagyu Thubten Choling—in New York, USA are not merely the story of one Buddhist teacher’s sexual misconduct.  They reveal a much wider institutional pattern: allegations are minimised or ignored; women who report them are left without support; senior monk teachers evade responsibility; and the reputation of the lineage is protected more vigorously than the people who say they have been harmed.

Chungpo Gyalton Rinpoche is teaching this week at Palpung Thubten Choling from 19–23 August 2026 as part of the “Discovering the Buddha Within” programme. This is the same monastery against which the female plaintiffs brought their claims, within the wider Palpung network and under the spiritual direction of 12th Khenting Tai Situ Rinpoche.

Part I of this Cruel Monks article series explores the lack of public response and acknowledgement regarding the Lama Norlha case and the same pattern revealed complaints about Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche, and sexist discrimination towards a survivor/whistleblower at a Palpung Europe centre. Followed-up by “no-contact” bullying and harassment of the same survivor with a blanket banning letter issued by Palpung Sherab Ling General Secretary, Lama Dragpa and an “ex parte/undefended” Delhi court case, of a fabricated “imminent threat” to safety, without giving any chance of a fair hearing or mediation in the name of a monk teacher, Gyalton Rinpoche (althought the signature on the Plaint seems to be someone called “Topden”).

In sum, the Palpung centre administrators named in this article have in one way or another, participated in a pattern of conduct that failed to provide an adequate response, due process, public accountability and proper investigation regarding cases of monk misconduct towards genuine Buddhist women disciples are:

• Palpung Thubten Choling, NY (2017, 2023 and 2026)
• Palpung Vienna, Europe (2025) 
• Palpung Dharma Chakra, France (2025)
• Palpung Sherab Ling Monastery (March 2026): Lama Dragpa (general secretary)

My conclusion is that this cowardly, cruel and callous treatment of Buddhist women attending teachings by monks cannot be whittled down to one-off teachers, women or cases, but reveals a deep spiritual betrayal of women, Buddhist vows and ethics. Unless there is real change within monastic institutions, laywomen and nuns face a stark choice about whether to revere and follow “celibate” monk teachers.

The question of laywomen following or developing close “friendships” with monk teachers and misuse of tantric rituals for energetic extraction, as opposed to genuine liberation and union, will be considered in the next article Cruel Monks II.

Considering I was not only genuinely devoted to Gyalton Rinpoche and had made a pure Vajrayana connection with him is a huge personal and spiritual loss. But I was also the first scholar-translator to seek out and translate the Collected Works outline of the great 8th Tai Situpa, had a pure vision of White Tara in the red Tai Situpa hat at the 8th Tai Situpa stupa, and suggested a flower garden for its neglected grounds.  For which I did not receive a word of praise or penny from the Palpung Sherab Ling teachers and administration.  It thus pains me even more to report that a few Palpung administrators and seeming “monk” teachers are treating Buddhist laywomen in such demeaning, cold-hearted and cowardly ways, and shaming and ruining the name of Palpung, the 8th Tai Situpa and Buddhism in the process. The 8th Tai Situpa was a great Buddhist master whose main yidam deity (like mine) was the female embodiment of great compassion, White Tārā!

Such callous conduct is a “spiritual murder” which even in the 21st Century they seem to think  they “can get away with”. By continuing to throw dirt and false accusations on a woman’s name with the aim of burying her reputation and legacy of work, to clean the “dirt” on their own reputations that arose they from their own conduct and lack of compassionate wisdom and leadership.

An adolescent-type male “rage” at mature, educated, intelligent adult laywomen that chooses to go “no contact”, threats of death and “black magic”, punish and exclude, rather than listen, repair and lead.  Revealing an emotional immaturity and lack of basic communication skills on the part of these “administrators” and monk teachers, but also  major lack of the “female principle” and “bliss” these monks so desperately chase after in their latest “pretty cheerleader” conquest in the name of “tantric union”, long-life and awakening. Instead, to avoid accountability or wise communication, they opt for an all too familiar worldly “toxic” childish response of hostility, blame, divide, stonewalling “ghosting”, combined with a total disregard for women’s humanity and equal wish to be happy and free from suffering. How is that supposed to be exemplifying the Buddhist path of love, compassion, truth and ethics and Vajrayana respect for women?

Palpung Thubten Choling and the Lama Norlha case in 2017 and class suit action in 2023

Lama Norlha founded Kagyu Thubten Choling in Wappingers Falls in 1978 and remained its principal teacher and abbot for nearly four decades. In December 2016, several women disclosed their experiences to senior monastery officials. The monastery subsequently engaged An Olive Branch, an outside organisation experienced in addressing misconduct in Buddhist communities.

In April 2017, approximately 160 community members attended a disclosure meeting at which statements from six women described sexual involvement with Lama Norlha extending over three decades. Most said that these experiences had harmed their psychological and personal wellbeing. Lama Norlha delivered a recorded apology, was removed from the teaching seat and subsequently retired. The monastery introduced an ethics policy prohibiting sexual relationships between teachers and students. These developments were reported by Lion’s Roar and Tricycle.

Yet describing the conduct simply as “relationships” or “sexual impropriety” conceals the profound inequality of power involved. Lama Norlha was a “celibate monk”, abbot, retreat master and object of intense religious devotion. The women were his students, some of them young or emotionally vulnerable. They had been taught to regard him as an enlightened guru whose instructions could override their own doubts and perceptions. Consent in such circumstances cannot be assessed as though teacher and student possessed equal authority, knowledge and freedom.

The “Jane Doe” case of three women against Palpung Thubten Choling who “vigorously disputed” the women’s allegations

In November 2023, three women—identified as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3—filed a civil action against Palpung Thubten Choling in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Their complaint alleged sexual assault, rape, coercive control and institutional facilitation over a period extending from the 1980s until 2016. Some claims were brought under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and others under New York legislation that temporarily revived otherwise time-barred civil claims by adult survivors.

Lama Norlha, who died in 2018, was not a defendant. The monastery was the institutional defendant and publicly stated that it “vigorously” disputed many of the allegations against the organisation. The allegations and the monastery’s response were reported extensively by the Times Union.

The complaint described not only individual assaults but an institutional environment that allegedly facilitated them. Women were recruited into the monastery, encouraged to relinquish personal relationships and autonomy, and placed in positions requiring private access to Lama Norlha. During three-year retreats, participants lived in considerable isolation, with restricted communication and substantial dependence upon monastery authorities. According to the plaintiffs, officials arranged private meetings, disregarded or minimised disclosures, and encouraged the women to trust Lama Norlha’s judgment rather than their own experience.

Particularly serious were the allegations involving senior Karma Kagyu teachers. Jane Doe 2 alleged that she informed both Tai Situ Rinpoche and Mingyur Rinpoche about Lama Norlha’s conduct. According to the complaint, Tai Situ Rinpoche discouraged her from making a major issue of it because Lama Norlha was “a good person,” while Mingyur Rinpoche allegedly took no effective action. This is clearly a pattern of negligence and ignoring women’s voices that repeated itself in relation to my and other women’s experiences when reporting Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche, see here.

Neither of those monk teachers was a defendant, and the proceedings produced no judicial findings against them. But the absence of a legal finding does not resolve an important Buddhist and ethical question.

A religious leader does not have to perpetrate an assault personally to help sustain the conditions in which abuse continues. When a senior teacher receives a credible disclosure and responds with silence, inaction, appeals to the alleged perpetrator’s good character, or concern for institutional reputation, that response may deepen a survivor’s isolation and leave other women exposed to harm. As I found out myself when I (and another woman) disclosed a pattern of misconduct by Sangye Nyenpa to both those senior teachers in 2020.

A settlement without public institutional acknowledgement and unable to claim 

On 30 August 2024, the federal court recorded that the claims had been settled and discontinued the proceedings, subject to completion of the settlement. A settlement is not the same as a judicial determination of every allegation and should not be presented as a jury verdict. Nevertheless, it represents a form of material accountability that survivors rarely obtain from Buddhist institutions themselves. The federal court order confirms the settlement.

Subsequent proceedings indicate that the financial consequences remain unresolved. In April 2026, media reporting described Jane Doe 1 as holding a $28.7 million judgment against the monastery and seeking approximately $13 million from its insurers. That insurance dispute should not be confused with a contested verdict on the underlying allegations. It does, however, show that Jane Doe 1’s struggle to obtain compensation continued after the original action ended. The insurance proceedings were reported by the Westfair Business Journal.

Also, what remains conspicuously absent is full public institutional acknowledgement. Even after women spoke publicly, an outside process found allegations credible, litigation was commenced, and a substantial settlement and judgment followed, the wider lineage has not publicly confronted the alleged failures of its own teachers and administrators. Which sadly confirms to me that even contesting or defending such litigation, at significant personal cost in terms of time, money and more, is not only exhausting to the woman and increases the trauma, but even should she get a “positive outcome” there is still no apology or acknowledgement.

Gyalton Rinpoche’s current teachings at Palpung Thubten Choling and the pending, “undefended” Delhi HC case

A couple of weeks before Gyalton Rinpoche’s teachings, I sent Palpung Thubten Choling and Palpung San Jose a “cease and desist” legal notice via email concerning the pending and “undefended” Delhi High Court case lodged in his name. I informed them that I had no intention of attending the US teachings (which in ordinary circumstances I would have tried to do so), denied all allegations as false or exaggerated, and had been unable for approximately five months to place my substantive defence and evidence before the court.

I explained my concerns about the ex parte interim order, allegedly false or misleading timelines, and reliance upon screenshots from an anonymous online smear campaign already banned or geo-blocked on other platforms.

As part of the case (and as a legally unrepresented Defendant), I requested full disclosure of communications from Chungpo Gyalton Rinpoche, Lama Dragpa, their representatives or associates concerning me or my possible attendance. I was concerned that undisclosed communications might have been used to “privately bar” or character assassinate me through hearsay, without fair process or opportunity to respond, as happened at Palpung Vienna and with EBU blocking of investigations citing anonymous online material to justify it.

As of the time of writing, neither Palpung Thubten Choling, nor any of the named Palpung centres have responded to my request. It has neither disclosed whether it received such communications nor explained whether a decision has been made concerning my attendance.  This silence is especially significant given the monastery’s history and allegations in the Jane Doe litigation.

Different cases and teachers but same organisations, same silence and lack of apology or mediation

I reported my own allegations concerning Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche to senior Karma Kagyu figures, including Tai Situ Rinpoche and Mingyur Rinpoche, in 2019 and 2020. Another European woman also spoke to them and expressed her disappointment at the lack of meaningful advice and leadership.

Neither of us (and there are other women) were offered a clear reporting process. No independent investigation was initiated. No neutral person contacted us to take statements, examine evidence, assess whether other women might be at risk, or determine whether the allegations disclosed a broader pattern. There was no transparent outcome and no indication that Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche had been subjected to any formal safeguarding process or warning.

The result was not neutrality. Institutional inaction preserved the existing distribution of power. Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche continued to teach and retain the public recognition of senior lineage figures, while the women who had reported concerns were left to manage the psychological, social and reputational consequences alone.

The absence of an investigation is itself the institutional failure and evidence of toxic male power and privilege.

This history is documented in my May 2026 article, “The Risky and Dangerous Consequences for Lone Women When Public Words of Advice Do Not Match a Buddhist Teacher’s Actions”. When senior teachers say little more than “do whatever you think is right,” they transfer the entire burden onto the woman reporting the conduct. She must decide whether to speak publicly, whom to contact, how to protect other women, how to preserve evidence, and how to withstand retaliation—all without institutional authority, protection or support.

The institution can then claim that it was never presented with a formal complaint or that no conclusion was possible because no investigation occurred. But the absence of an investigation is itself the institutional failure and evidence of toxic male power and privilege.

Chungpo Gyalton Rinpoche met and spent significant time with Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche in Nepal in May 2026. It is difficult not to conclude that the vexatious Delhi court case filed in my absence, for teachings in India that had already finished, was timed to silence and block me from attending the Nepal teachings and event. It was a major blessing in disguise for sure.

This callous “no-contact” court case, institutional failure and lack of leadership became more painful and distressing in May and June 2026, when Tai Situ Rinpoche, Mingyur Rinpoche and Chungpo Gyalton Rinpoche were publicly seen meeting, teaching and participating in religious events with Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche in Nepal. Sangye Nyenpa was among those greeting Tai Situ Rinpoche when he arrived in Kathmandu and was subsequently presented in a position of honour during these major Vajrayāna events.

Publicly honouring a teacher while complaints about his conduct remain uninvestigated and unresolved , and persecuting and harassing a lone woman survivor with a vexatious, fabricated “injunction order” is not a neutral or compassionate act. It communicates that the teacher’s status remains intact and that the women’s reports have had no meaningful consequence. It also warns other women that coming forward will achieve nothing beyond their own exclusion, humiliation and defamation. Of which I was fast becoming the “prime example”.

From deep and sincere devotion to cruel, draconian exclusion, no contact and wanton character assassination/smear campaign

Photo happily taken during a walk around Berlin August 2026 with Gyalton Rinpoche. There were zero incidents during the walk or teachings, other than a major disruption caused by an administrator, Titi Dolma informing people there I was dangerous and to be avoided.

The personal and spiritual context preceding the Delhi High Court proceedings is essential. Before any legal action was contemplated, I had been deeply devoted to Chungpo Gyalton Rinpoche. I had received several Vajrayāna empowerments from him, attended his teachings in multiple countries, translated texts associated with those teachings, and published detailed and consistently positive reports of his activities, as can be seen in this specially created website section here.

This matters because the plaint subsequently sought to character “assassinate” my conduct through an entirely different and deeply derogatory narrative by a few administrators  some of whom were close to Sangye Nyenpa. It actively hid and omitted the wider history of devotion, translation, positive reporting and spiritual commitment that had defined my relationship with the teacher, as well as in relation to the Karma Kagyu lineage and tradition of Tibetan Buddhism prior to our connection. A fair and true account would have had to explain how a woman, who is also a published Buddhist scholar-translator-practitioner for over ten years,  who had consistently praised and supported Gyalton Rinpoche was now unfairly and one-sidedly being depicted as malicious, threatening or dangerous.

This is what makes the litigation so personally and spiritually devastating. It represented the abrupt transformation of a teacher-student relationship founded upon Vajrayāna devotion, empowerment, refuge and trust into one of litigation, false accusations, exclusion and public humiliation.

The most crushing aspect has been the complete absence of verbal contact or humane, friendly dialogue, prior to and after the litigation. I have been left to confront serious public accusations, complex foreign litigation and substantial financial costs without being permitted to speak directly with the teacher to whom I had been devoted, in whose name it has been filed. No pastoral support, reconciliation process or neutral mediation was offered by anyone before the matter was escalated into legal proceedings.

This absence of compassion and communication is difficult to reconcile with Buddhist teachings of careful examination, truthful speech, non-harming, compassion and the avoidance of judgment based merely upon hearsay.

To destroy the sacred bond between teacher and student without warning nor attempt to repair with hearsay, exclusion, anonymous or unverified online content and ex parte litigation is not simply a legal injury. It is a form of cowardly and cruel spiritual betrayal.

The proceedings are vexatious and seem to form part of an attempt to character assassinate, financially exhaust and silence me after six years of unresolved disclosures, exclusion, bullying and reputational attacks.  Instead of any investigation into what I and other women had reported concerning Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche, I now find myself trying—without lawyers or comparable institutional resources—to defend my own character against litigation initiated in the name of a senior Palpung monk (whom I had been genuinely devoted to) mis-using Indian stalking and harassment laws intended to protect vulnerable lone women such as myself, now used to “protect” a high-profile monk from a lone woman survivor (still suffering from the trauma of the prior misconduct and breach of trust) who is based outside India and posed no danger or “imminent threat” at all.

A particularly disturbing feature of the Delhi case filing is its reliance “as evidence” upon screenshots taken from an anonymous online smear campaign hosted on Github repository (ongoing since May 2025). The cowardly “harasser” falsely presents the campaign as a purported “public accountability audit,” but provides no name, verifiable identity, professional credentials, transparent methodology, verified subtantive evidence, or accountable organisation behind it. It is not a legitimate public-interest investigation but a sustained campaign of anonymous harassment, character assassination and misogynistic abuse and cyberbullying. And has already been banned and geo-blocked in the UK on other online platforms [ii].

Revealing a pattern of male cruelty and disregard for women’s voices and concerns: are monk teachers and monastic institutions “healthy and safe” for women?

The Palpung Thubten Choling Monastery case and my case are substantively different. Yet both situations demonstrate the same structural imbalance: male religious authorities decide which allegations deserve attention, whose testimony can be ignored, whose speech is treated as threatening and whose reputation receives institutional protection.

The point is the recurring institutional method: no independent investigation of the male teacher, no substantive support for the women, continued public elevation of the teacher, and hostility or legal pressure directed towards a woman who refuses to remain silent and accept lies and injustice.

Monks processing at dawn for alms of rice in Luang Prabang, Laos, Indochina, Southeast Asia, Asia

These experiences force an uncomfortable conclusion. Predominantly male monastic institutions cannot simply be presumed to be safe or suitable places of refuge for laywomen or nuns merely because they teach compassion, ethics and liberation.

The recurring patterns are familiar:

• the teacher is portrayed as exceptionally realised or fundamentally “good”;
• women are encouraged to doubt their own perceptions;
• complaints are handled privately by people loyal to the institution or teacher;
• guru devotion and samaya discourage criticism;
• no genuinely independent investigation is commissioned;
• women who remain silent are tolerated and can stay within the community;
• and women who refuse to accept unethical conduct, sexism and misogyny are depicted (and even later harassed) as unstable, malicious, disrespectful or dangerous.

This is not limited to one Kagyu monastery or necessarily to one Tibetan Buddhist lineage. It reflects a broader danger within patriarchal monastic structures in which authority, resources, education and public legitimacy remain overwhelmingly concentrated in a few male hands while laywomen and nuns occupy subordinate  or “token” positions.

That does not mean that every monk, lama or monastery is abusive. It means that without independent safeguarding structures, external oversight and enforceable accountability, traditional status cannot be treated as evidence of safety. A person’s robes, titles, lineage and reputation do not provide protection against abuse. Nor do they qualify someone to investigate colleagues, gurus or institutional superiors impartially.

Accountability must mean more than words

Meaningful accountability requires independent investigations, access to justice for those without legal representation or funding, publication of findings, protection against bullying and retaliation, shutdown of anonymous smear campaigns, removal of officials and administrators who ignore credible disclosures or spread hearsay and harmful gossip, survivor-led reparative processes, and clear safeguarding duties extending to senior lineage authorities. Spiritual supervision must carry ethical responsibility; it cannot be invoked when legitimacy and devotion are required but disclaimed when misconduct is reported.

Most importantly, Buddhist teachings such as guru devotion and samaya must never be used to override bodily and mental consent and autonomy, prevent critical examination or protect a teacher’s reputation when there is clear unethical conduct, deception and bullying and defamation of lone women.

Compassion without truth becomes public relations. Devotion without ethical discernment becomes a mechanism of control.  A lineage cannot credibly claim to transmit liberation while leaving women who report misconduct without refuge, guidance or protection. The real threat to the Dharma is not the woman who refuses to remain silent. It is the institutional silence that allows power to operate without investigation, responsibility or consequence.

Adele Tomlin/Dakini Translations, 19th August 2026.