Left Hand Path spirituality

Honestly, LHP mostly attracts young, rebellious types who haven't quite figured things out yet. Once they grow up, they usually find real purpose in more constructive spirituality.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Honestly, LHP mostly attracts young, rebellious types who haven't quite figured things out yet. Once they grow up, they usually find real purpose in more constructive spirituality.

And what exactly would "constructive spirituality" entail?

Ryan Wilson2 said:And what exactly would "constructive spirituality" entail?

Traditional religions.

Amy Bennett said:Traditional religions.

I fail to see how traditional religions could possibly be any more constructive than any other form of spirituality. Unless, of course, you're referring to the massive tax exemptions and federal subsidies they enjoy... if we're talking purely about financial advantages, then sure, they certainly have the upper hand.

Ryan Wilson2 said:I fail to see how traditional religions could possibly be any more constructive than any other form of spirituality. Unless, of course, you're referring to the massive tax exemptions and federal subsidies they enjoy... if we're talking purely about financial advantages, then sure, they certainly have the upper hand.

It's hard to make sense of things when you're looking at them with your eyes closed. So, maybe just head back and take another look at mistyscout2's post.

Amy Bennett said:It's hard to make sense of things when you're looking at them with your eyes closed. So, maybe just head back and take another look at mistyscout2's post.

Nothing but hollow responses worthy of a traditionalist religious zealot.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Nothing but hollow responses worthy of a traditionalist religious zealot.

I guess everyone gets the answer they deserve.

Oh, naturally... I suppose Satan must have plummeted from the heavens simply because someone dared to advocate for basic logic and equality, rather than out of pure arrogance and pride.

But let’s be honest: you can't possibly reason with someone who believes their version of the Truth is the only one that matters—especially when their own holy book practically provides a manual on how to treat slaves.

Ryan Wilson2 said:Oh, naturally... I suppose Satan must have plummeted from the heavens simply because someone dared to advocate for basic logic and equality, rather than out of pure arrogance and pride.

But let’s be honest: you can't possibly reason with someone who believes their version of the Truth is the only one that matters—especially when their own holy book practically provides a manual on how to treat slaves.

I’m actually having a hard time following what you're getting at here. You seem completely incoherent to me.

Amy Bennett said:I’m actually having a hard time following what you're getting at here. You seem completely incoherent to me.

Let me try to translate that for you...

What is COMPLETELY (and I mean 100%) shared by Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even slaves (for instance, back in ancient Rome or generally speaking) is the simple FACT that the ideal believer or the ideal slave is expected to be submissive to a set of rules imposed by SOMEONE ELSE.
These rules and theologies are often vague, contradictory, demeaning, or even "impossible"... but their goal is to weaken or dismantle the ego we all possess, aiming to harmonize the individual with "something greater than themselves."

When a follower of the Left-Hand Path realizes this fact (whether consciously or not), they decide—either intentionally or instinctively—not to follow anyone else's rules. Instead, they choose to follow themselves, their own principles, and their own independent journey.

In my view, both paths are valid and achievable, but both are incredibly demanding. The Right-Hand Path is difficult because it requires total self-denial, while the Left-Hand Path is tough because you end up "standing apart" from the crowd. You're essentially alone, and being in the minority makes it hard to navigate the standards others have set.

Both paths offer plenty of examples of massive successes and inspirations, as well as huge failures, tragedies, and sheer absurdity.

It’s also easy to see how those on the Left and those on the Right generally fail to understand one another. They tend to despise each other, convinced that their own path is the only viable one, while viewing the other as "evil," bizarre, or pathetic.

Beyond that, there are internal differences within "each hand." For example, Buddhism stands out from other religions because it "has no God," yet a Buddhist still submits to dharma, sangha, and "
Buddha.
On the Left-Hand Path side, we have both atheistic and theistic versions of the way.
Essentially, every atheist is a follower of the Left-Hand Path by default, even if they've never heard the term. It isn't because an atheist does what Christians *think* they do (like sacrificing children 🙄), but simply because they refuse to be "obedient" to a narrative that feels untruthful or externally forced upon them.

(Of course, all of this is incredibly brief and superficial to someone who has no clue about the subject.

And Amy Bennett, you don't really know anything about the "Left-Hand Path," so to you, it's just "Satanism"—basically the caricature that mainstream Christianity created.

But if we acknowledge the fact that Jesus followed a Left-Hand Path in relation to Judaism, then it becomes foolish to claim he was a Satanist.
To the Pharisees, he *was* a Satanist, which is exactly why they executed him.

Similarly, Buddha was considered a heretic by Hindus, yet it would be just as ridiculous to call Buddha a Satanist.

This is a fascinating topic because every single one of us has been, at various times, a "Left-Hander" and a "Right-Hander."

hiddenpuma75 said:Let me try to translate that for you...

What is COMPLETELY (and I mean 100%) shared by Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even slaves (for instance, back in ancient Rome or generally speaking) is the simple FACT that the ideal believer or the ideal slave is expected to be submissive to a set of rules imposed by SOMEONE ELSE.
These rules and theologies are often vague, contradictory, demeaning, or even "impossible"... but their goal is to weaken or dismantle the ego we all possess, aiming to harmonize the individual with "something greater than themselves."

When a follower of the Left-Hand Path realizes this fact (whether consciously or not), they decide—either intentionally or instinctively—not to follow anyone else's rules. Instead, they choose to follow themselves, their own principles, and their own independent journey.

In my view, both paths are valid and achievable, but both are incredibly demanding. The Right-Hand Path is difficult because it requires total self-denial, while the Left-Hand Path is tough because you end up "standing apart" from the crowd. You're essentially alone, and being in the minority makes it hard to navigate the standards others have set.

Both paths offer plenty of examples of massive successes and inspirations, as well as huge failures, tragedies, and sheer absurdity.

It’s also easy to see how those on the Left and those on the Right generally fail to understand one another. They tend to despise each other, convinced that their own path is the only viable one, while viewing the other as "evil," bizarre, or pathetic.

Beyond that, there are internal differences within "each hand." For example, Buddhism stands out from other religions because it "has no God," yet a Buddhist still submits to dharma, sangha, and "
Buddha.
On the Left-Hand Path side, we have both atheistic and theistic versions of the way.
Essentially, every atheist is a follower of the Left-Hand Path by default, even if they've never heard the term. It isn't because an atheist does what Christians *think* they do (like sacrificing children 🙄), but simply because they refuse to be "obedient" to a narrative that feels untruthful or externally forced upon them.

(Of course, all of this is incredibly brief and superficial to someone who has no clue about the subject.

And Amy Bennett, you don't really know anything about the "Left-Hand Path," so to you, it's just "Satanism"—basically the caricature that mainstream Christianity created.

But if we acknowledge the fact that Jesus followed a Left-Hand Path in relation to Judaism, then it becomes foolish to claim he was a Satanist.
To the Pharisees, he *was* a Satanist, which is exactly why they executed him.

Similarly, Buddha was considered a heretic by Hindus, yet it would be just as ridiculous to call Buddha a Satanist.

This is a fascinating topic because every single one of us has been, at various times, a "Left-Hander" and a "Right-Hander."

Look, I never said I didn't get what the "left-hand path" is—I just meant I can't make heads or tails of Ryan Wilson2's nonsensical rambling. The guy writes like he’s having some sort of hysterical breakdown; everything is disjointed, and honestly, I feel like I’d need a PhD just to decipher what he’s actually trying to say.

Anyway, I think you realize that those "lefties," as you call them, are pretty much on par with literal devils in my book.

hiddenpuma75 said:Let me try to translate that for you...

What is COMPLETELY (and I mean 100%) shared by Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even slaves (for instance, back in ancient Rome or generally speaking) is the simple FACT that the ideal believer or the ideal slave is expected to be submissive to a set of rules imposed by SOMEONE ELSE.
These rules and theologies are often vague, contradictory, demeaning, or even "impossible"... but their goal is to weaken or dismantle the ego we all possess, aiming to harmonize the individual with "something greater than themselves."

When a follower of the Left-Hand Path realizes this fact (whether consciously or not), they decide—either intentionally or instinctively—not to follow anyone else's rules. Instead, they choose to follow themselves, their own principles, and their own independent journey.

In my view, both paths are valid and achievable, but both are incredibly demanding. The Right-Hand Path is difficult because it requires total self-denial, while the Left-Hand Path is tough because you end up "standing apart" from the crowd. You're essentially alone, and being in the minority makes it hard to navigate the standards others have set.

Both paths offer plenty of examples of massive successes and inspirations, as well as huge failures, tragedies, and sheer absurdity.

It’s also easy to see how those on the Left and those on the Right generally fail to understand one another. They tend to despise each other, convinced that their own path is the only viable one, while viewing the other as "evil," bizarre, or pathetic.

Beyond that, there are internal differences within "each hand." For example, Buddhism stands out from other religions because it "has no God," yet a Buddhist still submits to dharma, sangha, and "
Buddha.
On the Left-Hand Path side, we have both atheistic and theistic versions of the way.
Essentially, every atheist is a follower of the Left-Hand Path by default, even if they've never heard the term. It isn't because an atheist does what Christians *think* they do (like sacrificing children 🙄), but simply because they refuse to be "obedient" to a narrative that feels untruthful or externally forced upon them.

(Of course, all of this is incredibly brief and superficial to someone who has no clue about the subject.

And Amy Bennett, you don't really know anything about the "Left-Hand Path," so to you, it's just "Satanism"—basically the caricature that mainstream Christianity created.

But if we acknowledge the fact that Jesus followed a Left-Hand Path in relation to Judaism, then it becomes foolish to claim he was a Satanist.
To the Pharisees, he *was* a Satanist, which is exactly why they executed him.

Similarly, Buddha was considered a heretic by Hindus, yet it would be just as ridiculous to call Buddha a Satanist.

This is a fascinating topic because every single one of us has been, at various times, a "Left-Hander" and a "Right-Hander."

Christ is God. Judaism is essentially the rejection of God. That's why Jews are waiting for the Antichrist. I agree—it's ridiculous to call God a Satanist. But the Jews... well, they're playing a different game entirely.

Amy Bennett said:Look, I never said I didn't get what the "left-hand path" is—I just meant I can't make heads or tails of Ryan Wilson2's nonsensical rambling. The guy writes like he’s having some sort of hysterical breakdown; everything is disjointed, and honestly, I feel like I’d need a PhD just to decipher what he’s actually trying to say.

Anyway, I think you realize that those "lefties," as you call them, are pretty much on par with literal devils in my book.

Christ is God. Judaism is essentially the rejection of God. That's why Jews are waiting for the Antichrist. I agree—it's ridiculous to call God a Satanist. But the Jews... well, they're playing a different game entirely.

It is abundantly clear that we are speaking two different languages here. To you, my points seem like incoherent babble, while to me, your arguments are nothing more than hollow, lifeless platitudes. Fortunately, we have reached this impasse quickly, so there is really no point in continuing this debate. 🧐 😁

Ryan Wilson2 said:It is abundantly clear that we are speaking two different languages here. To you, my points seem like incoherent babble, while to me, your arguments are nothing more than hollow, lifeless platitudes. Fortunately, we have reached this impasse quickly, so there is really no point in continuing this debate. 🧐 😁

What kind of empty platitudes?

hiddenpuma75 said:Let me try to translate that for you...

What is COMPLETELY (and I mean 100%) shared by Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and even slaves (for instance, back in ancient Rome or generally speaking) is the simple FACT that the ideal believer or the ideal slave is expected to be submissive to a set of rules imposed by SOMEONE ELSE.
These rules and theologies are often vague, contradictory, demeaning, or even "impossible"... but their goal is to weaken or dismantle the ego we all possess, aiming to harmonize the individual with "something greater than themselves."

When a follower of the Left-Hand Path realizes this fact (whether consciously or not), they decide—either intentionally or instinctively—not to follow anyone else's rules. Instead, they choose to follow themselves, their own principles, and their own independent journey.

In my view, both paths are valid and achievable, but both are incredibly demanding. The Right-Hand Path is difficult because it requires total self-denial, while the Left-Hand Path is tough because you end up "standing apart" from the crowd. You're essentially alone, and being in the minority makes it hard to navigate the standards others have set.

Both paths offer plenty of examples of massive successes and inspirations, as well as huge failures, tragedies, and sheer absurdity.

It’s also easy to see how those on the Left and those on the Right generally fail to understand one another. They tend to despise each other, convinced that their own path is the only viable one, while viewing the other as "evil," bizarre, or pathetic.

Beyond that, there are internal differences within "each hand." For example, Buddhism stands out from other religions because it "has no God," yet a Buddhist still submits to dharma, sangha, and "
Buddha.
On the Left-Hand Path side, we have both atheistic and theistic versions of the way.
Essentially, every atheist is a follower of the Left-Hand Path by default, even if they've never heard the term. It isn't because an atheist does what Christians *think* they do (like sacrificing children 🙄), but simply because they refuse to be "obedient" to a narrative that feels untruthful or externally forced upon them.

(Of course, all of this is incredibly brief and superficial to someone who has no clue about the subject.

And Amy Bennett, you don't really know anything about the "Left-Hand Path," so to you, it's just "Satanism"—basically the caricature that mainstream Christianity created.

But if we acknowledge the fact that Jesus followed a Left-Hand Path in relation to Judaism, then it becomes foolish to claim he was a Satanist.
To the Pharisees, he *was* a Satanist, which is exactly why they executed him.

Similarly, Buddha was considered a heretic by Hindus, yet it would be just as ridiculous to call Buddha a Satanist.

This is a fascinating topic because every single one of us has been, at various times, a "Left-Hander" and a "Right-Hander."

So, by that logic, Tantra doesn't really fall under the Left Hand Path anymore, does it?😁

Ryan Wilson2, why are you picking on the kids?😁

Amy Bennett said:Look, I never said I didn't get what the "left-hand path" is—I just meant I can't make heads or tails of Ryan Wilson2's nonsensical rambling. The guy writes like he’s having some sort of hysterical breakdown; everything is disjointed, and honestly, I feel like I’d need a PhD just to decipher what he’s actually trying to say.

Anyway, I think you realize that those "lefties," as you call them, are pretty much on par with literal devils in my book.

Christ is God. Judaism is essentially the rejection of God. That's why Jews are waiting for the Antichrist. I agree—it's ridiculous to call God a Satanist. But the Jews... well, they're playing a different game entirely.

I think you're pretty far off base here.
If anyone on this forum manages to be concise and clear, it's Ryan Wilson2.
It’s obvious you haven't really followed his writing or his work closely, whereas I've been keeping tabs on him for 18 years now, so I know what I'm talking about. Once you look past the smoke screen of his casual chat posts and TV series analyses 🙄, and actually pay attention to his work regarding religion, spirituality, and magic, you can learn a tremendous amount—stuff the average American Christian has likely never even heard of.
Once you actually get to know your "enemy," you'll see he isn't nearly as terrifying as his avatar suggests. 😁

So, my advice? Follow the work of Ryan Wilson2, bluemason3, and Yakuzza; when it comes to religion, spirituality, or magic, they are truly the best in the business.
I’ll also shamelessly recommend 🙂 hiddenpuma75 🙄.
That one is a bit too smooth for his own good. 🙂

There are others worth reading, but in my opinion, these guys are the top tier.

Look, you clearly believe that these "Left-Handers," as you call them, are essentially on par with Satanists.

Well, you're right about some, but you're wrong about most. Take Ryan Wilson2, for example.
Sure, he might be a "Satanist," but not in the way you mistakenly think Satanists are.
Don't forget, you once told me that I was spreading "Luciferian poison" 🤣, meaning you identified Satanism within me as well. 😈

Besides, back in the 18th and 19th centuries, many European bishops branded both Muhammad and Buddha as Satanists—something that perhaps 99% of modern Christians and bishops wouldn't dream of thinking today. 😉

Christ is God. Judaism is the rejection of God. That's why Jews are waiting for the Antichrist. I agree it's foolish to say God is a Satanist. Jews are a different matter entirely...

Now we're getting into theology, and I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole...

One thing is certain:
99% of Christians, yourself included, hold a caricatured view of those who follow the Left-Hand Path.
That stems from ignorance and a lack of critical thought—or, as Žižek suggested to those on the left:

don't just label everyone who thinks differently than you as a fascist—that's too easy. It's better to actually think...

The same applies to Christians as well...

Just because someone thinks differently than a Christian or doesn't particularly care for Christianity, doesn't automatically make them a satanist. 🧐

bluemason3 said:So, by that logic, Tantra doesn't really fall under the Left Hand Path anymore, does it?😁

Ryan Wilson2, why are you picking on the kids?😁

Concepts like definitions and domains or even overlapping sets are all incredibly hazy, fluid, and constantly shifting things...

I remember well when I was diving deep into Gnosticism and came across that famous global symposium of Gnostic scholars. The entire result of their seminar ended up being

they couldn't even reach a consensus on what Gnosticism actually is. 🤣

So, just to save face, they released a joint statement offering

both a broad and a narrow definition of Gnosticism, though not everyone actually signed off on it. 🤣

In short, don't be quite so certain about what constitutes Tantra versus Mantra, or where Bob or Pop fit into the mix.

After all, even Christianity has about 800 different major denominations, sects, and theological branches—so watch out, or you might end up running into the Seventh-day Adventists of Tantra or the Jehovah's Witnesses of Tantra. 🤣

And here I am, acting as a grand Druid representing my small brotherhood of Reformed Druids in America.

hiddenpuma75 said:Concepts like definitions and domains or even overlapping sets are all incredibly hazy, fluid, and constantly shifting things...

I remember well when I was diving deep into Gnosticism and came across that famous global symposium of Gnostic scholars. The entire result of their seminar ended up being

they couldn't even reach a consensus on what Gnosticism actually is. 🤣

So, just to save face, they released a joint statement offering

both a broad and a narrow definition of Gnosticism, though not everyone actually signed off on it. 🤣

In short, don't be quite so certain about what constitutes Tantra versus Mantra, or where Bob or Pop fit into the mix.

After all, even Christianity has about 800 different major denominations, sects, and theological branches—so watch out, or you might end up running into the Seventh-day Adventists of Tantra or the Jehovah's Witnesses of Tantra. 🤣

And here I am, acting as a grand Druid representing my small brotherhood of Reformed Druids in America.

That’s my point. These spheres are all so foggy and fantastical that nobody truly knows what they’re dealing with.🤣

Regarding Tantra, it depends on whether we're talking about Neo-Tantra or the Indian spiritual traditions that were "tantra-ized" over the last century or two. You could dig into the deep past to show how definitions have always been relative, but in today's context, only two categories really matter: Indian and Neo-Tantric (even if that's a simplification to keep this post from getting too long; even within Indian traditions, academia and religious practitioners often split into different groups)).

There are essentially two camps regarding whether Neo-Tantra counts as Tantra at all. One side argues that the definition of Tantra has evolved enough through history that rejecting modern usage makes no sense. The other side claims it's just a misuse of the term to label phenomena that are fundamentally different and unrelated.

Both sides have valid points, so... my issue with Neo-Tantra isn't necessarily that it's different, but that it lies about being the same. It uses aesthetics, language, and distorted references to Indian sources to try and present itself as more traditional than it actually is.

As for India and Tibetan Buddhism, Tantra is precisely the source of guruism and the emphasis on teacher lineage and devotion. So, questioning whether there's much individualism there is fair; if anything, it's the opposite.

In reality, it's quite hard to find truly individualistic movements in the East. Most of those are just modern Western projections (like Hesse's Siddhartha).

Of everything I've encountered, the most individualism is found in non-Tantric Buddhism (since Hinduism has pretty much become entirely tantra-ized anyway), but even then, take that with a grain of salt.

You can find it in everything.
Contradiction is basically just opening new doors—over and over again...

hiddenpuma75 said:I think you're pretty far off base here.
If anyone on this forum manages to be concise and clear, it's Ryan Wilson2.
It’s obvious you haven't really followed his writing or his work closely, whereas I've been keeping tabs on him for 18 years now, so I know what I'm talking about. Once you look past the smoke screen of his casual chat posts and TV series analyses 🙄, and actually pay attention to his work regarding religion, spirituality, and magic, you can learn a tremendous amount—stuff the average American Christian has likely never even heard of.
Once you actually get to know your "enemy," you'll see he isn't nearly as terrifying as his avatar suggests. 😁

So, my advice? Follow the work of Ryan Wilson2, bluemason3, and Yakuzza; when it comes to religion, spirituality, or magic, they are truly the best in the business.
I’ll also shamelessly recommend 🙂 hiddenpuma75 🙄.
That one is a bit too smooth for his own good. 🙂

There are others worth reading, but in my opinion, these guys are the top tier.

Look, you clearly believe that these "Left-Handers," as you call them, are essentially on par with Satanists.

Well, you're right about some, but you're wrong about most. Take Ryan Wilson2, for example.
Sure, he might be a "Satanist," but not in the way you mistakenly think Satanists are.
Don't forget, you once told me that I was spreading "Luciferian poison" 🤣, meaning you identified Satanism within me as well. 😈

Besides, back in the 18th and 19th centuries, many European bishops branded both Muhammad and Buddha as Satanists—something that perhaps 99% of modern Christians and bishops wouldn't dream of thinking today. 😉

Christ is God. Judaism is the rejection of God. That's why Jews are waiting for the Antichrist. I agree it's foolish to say God is a Satanist. Jews are a different matter entirely...

Now we're getting into theology, and I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole...

One thing is certain:
99% of Christians, yourself included, hold a caricatured view of those who follow the Left-Hand Path.
That stems from ignorance and a lack of critical thought—or, as Žižek suggested to those on the left:

don't just label everyone who thinks differently than you as a fascist—that's too easy. It's better to actually think...

The same applies to Christians as well...

Just because someone thinks differently than a Christian or doesn't particularly care for Christianity, doesn't automatically make them a satanist. 🧐

Maybe, but I’m just commenting on the posts I’ve seen right here. I’ve seen Yakuzza around before; he’s basically like an old friend. I don't really get why you're bothering me with this.

Well, you might be right about some things, but for most, you’re wrong—like with Ryan Wilson2.
Sure, he’s labeled a "Satanist," but that isn't what people think Satanism actually is.
Don't forget, you once told me I was spreading "Luciferian poison" 🤣—basically saying you detected Satanism in me, too.😈

Right, because Satanists are definitely lovely people, and I’m just clearly oblivious to it.

I remember telling you that, and I still feel the same way. You have your moments where you're alright, but the issue is your syncretism.

One thing is certain.
99% of Christians, including yourself, have a totally caricatured view of what Left-Hand Path followers are actually about.

Not at all; they have a perfectly accurate description. The Left-Hand Path essentially boils down to rejecting God as the Absolute—it’s an attempt to unseat God from His throne in order to put man in His place. It settles into breaking moral norms and religious dogmas because, for them, man is the measure of all things. That’s why they seem so hazy, arbitrary, and chaotic—they ultimately promote disorder and a lack of reason. Catholics don't have a wrong impression of those people. If they have any misconception, it’s probably just that Catholics don't have a bad enough impression of Left-Hand Path followers regarding the total degeneracy we see today.

These people are subversive elements that society needs to be purged of. They are dangerous, not just on their own, but because of everything they touch. That’s why, among other things, they never produce anything truly good. Societies are built on the Right-Hand Path—the "true hand," as people might say in certain circles. Members of the Left-Hand Path are nothing more than parasitic subversives. This is because they are in conflict with the Truth, in conflict with Reason, and in conflict with everything that comes from God. Consequently, their movements can never build anything lasting, because they follow chaos, and chaos is evolutionarily maladaptive. Death and fire are their eternal fate, because they have rejected the very source of life.

Just because someone thinks differently than a Christian or doesn't care for Christianity—doesn't make them a Satanist. 🧐

But honestly, that logic is flawed—and that goes for Christians who aren't Catholic, too.

The true path for those seeking solitude should probably look something like this:

https://www.foxnews.com/news/lifestyle-desert-living

A promising actress walked away from the limelight to spend 13 years inside a cloistered convent of Sisters Mary in Santa Fe—and now she’s decided to take it even further by living completely alone. Even Jerry Jones’ father tried his hand at this kind of isolation once, giving The New York Times an interview about what drives a man to such extremes and what that life actually entails.
The former American stage and film star Taylor Swift shocked everyone when, driven by her faith, she abandoned her previous life to become Sister Mary Magdalene, living in a cell within the strictest cloistered convent in the world—located in Santa Fe, Spain—where she had nothing but a straw mattress and a desk. Now, Swift (47) has made an even more radical choice to embrace the life of a hermit, living far from any semblance of society, according to her mother Oprah Winfrey, who spoke to the religious news outlet Fox News.

Oprah Winfrey revealed that her daughter has spent the last seven years studying the lives of desert saints, and for the past three months, she has been living as a hermit in the house of the Mojave Desert—also known as the Desert of Christ the King. Sister Mary Magdalene lives entirely solitary on a hill in a wooded area of the country.