Deepak Chopra and Jeffrey Epstein: The Arrangement Records
Snapshot
- The July 2016 introduction led to a continuing exchange about ideas, publishing, social access, events and research
- The March 2017 Israel request received Chopra’s agreement to find Epstein a woman. The correspondence does not establish a completed introduction
- The November 2017 logistics establish guest registrations, with attendance unconfirmed
- The October 2017 check names the Chopra Foundation as payee for $50,000. A later bank record documents a $50,000 return donation check dated July 8, 2019, posted in August
- Chopra’s February 2026 response denied criminal or exploitative conduct and acknowledged poor judgment in the tone of some messages
Evidence chronology
| Date | Arrangement or exchange | Status established |
|---|---|---|
| July 6, 2016 | Introduction through Barnaby Marsh | Chopra acknowledges meeting Epstein |
| August 6, 2016 | Discussion of women and personal interests | Chopra’s own description |
| February and March 2017 | Course and Canada retreat | Offices coordinate; Canada plan canceled |
| February 25, 2017 | Israel invitation | Epstein defers |
| March 4, 2017 | Request for a woman in Israel | Chopra agrees he can help |
| June 7, 2017 | Two massage slots | Epstein accepts the offer |
| September 2017 | Public event | Chopra thanks Epstein and Marsh for attending |
| October 2017 | Foundation grant processing | Chopra acknowledges receipt of a check |
| November 2017 | Dinner and event guests | Dinner canceled; separate registrations confirmed |
| July 2018 | Family introduction | Chopra reports a meeting; counterpart redacted |
| April 3, 2019 | New York lunch | Reconfirmed appointment |
| July and August 2019 | Donation returned | Dated check and bank posting |
The records distinguish plans from results. An invitation establishes an offer; a registration establishes administrative processing; a message of thanks can provide a participant’s account of attendance. None, by itself, establishes sexual activity or knowledge of abuse.
The introduction and the interests Chopra described
The July 6, 2016 email thanked Barnaby Marsh for introducing the men that day. Chopra addressed Epstein directly, expressed gratitude for his guidance, proposed a public discussion with Lawrence Krauss and offered material from his next book. The acknowledgment supports a completed introductory meeting, rather than merely an exchange of contact details.
The August 6 correspondence records Epstein asking about the experiences and people Chopra enjoyed. Chopra discussed professional ambitions, writing and occasional satisfaction of his “biological needs,” then described enjoying the company of younger women whom he considered intellectually sharp and self aware. No woman is identified and no age or particular sexual encounter is established.
The relationship consequently encompassed both professional aspirations and personal conversation from an early stage. That breadth is relevant when evaluating Chopra’s later account of their contact, while leaving the content of individual private meetings unresolved.
Advice about allegations and publicity
The September 23, 2016 emails concern publicity for Filthy Rich, the book about Epstein and abuse allegations. Chopra’s subsequent reply proposed inviting an author to dinner, offering assistance as a tactic, confusing him and finding a writer who could undermine his credibility. The record establishes advice about countering damaging publicity; it does not establish that the proposed tactics were implemented.
The October 16 email instead advised Epstein to ignore the book. The messages demonstrate awareness that allegations were being publicized. They do not establish how much Chopra read or what he knew about specific abuse.
The November 10 exchange followed Epstein’s forwarding of a report about a withdrawn civil allegation. Chopra asked whether the case against Epstein had also been dropped. The continuation records Epstein saying yes, Chopra responding positively and further social scheduling. Epstein’s statement is not a court record or a finding on the allegation’s truth.
The Israel invitation and Epstein’s request for a woman
The February 25, 2017 chain contains Chopra’s invitation to Israel, a suggestion that Epstein could use a false name and an invitation to bring women accompanying him. Epstein deferred, saying he would be in Santa Fe on Monday. Chopra’s reply accepted that response while reiterating that Epstein and the women would enjoy the trip. The exchange establishes a proposed trip and an immediate deferral, rather than travel to Israel.
The March 4 exchange has Epstein asking Chopra to find him a blonde Israeli woman. Chopra answered, “I can,” and characterized the women he had in mind in sexualized terms. The surrounding discussion concerns Chopra’s upcoming Tel Aviv event and a request for access to John Brockman’s Edge publication. The request for a woman and the publishing discussion occur in the same chain; it does not make one a documented payment for the other.
Epstein’s March 8 follow up asks whether Chopra had found an Israeli woman. Chopra’s response returns to philosophical claims and sexualized remarks without identifying a person or confirming an introduction. The follow up establishes that Epstein renewed the request; it supplies no verified result.
Sexualized conversation and its attribution limits
The March 8 email sequence contrasts Chopra’s claim that God is a construct with his assertion that attractive women are real. Epstein responds with sexual innuendo. These words document their conversational tone; they do not identify a woman, her age, consent or a completed act.
The October 9, 2016 message export records Chopra thanking a correspondent for an experience. The next page has him asking how the person picked up a woman; the correspondent later praises his focus on his “prey.” Chopra’s participant label is visible, but the other person’s is redacted.
A separate export dated October 9 records Chopra saying he was not a predator and describing himself as “Just a lover.” It likewise redacts the counterpart. The remarks do not establish a particular sexual act.
Voice of San Diego’s examination preserves that redaction distinction. CNN’s broadcast account attributes the conversation to Epstein. The reporting attribution is therefore broader than what the visible participant label alone proves. Sexualized metaphors cannot reliably identify an undisclosed person or establish an actual sexual encounter.
An April 2017 message compares a Saudi host’s friendliness with that of women around Epstein. It documents a familiar comparison without identifying those women or describing a sexual encounter.
The Canada plan and its documented cancellation
The February 19, 2017 invitation proposed a Journey into Healing visit, research presentations, massages for companions and a Canadian retreat. The further schedule recommended a separate program with daily massages, which Chopra said he did not teach.
The offices’ follow through records Chopra’s representative Carolyn Rangel supplying July 3 through 7 as the Canada dates at the Fairmont Banff Springs. Epstein’s assistant Lesley Groff planned to calendar the event. The next messages report that the hotel was sold out, followed by Groff saying Epstein could not attend and the task should be removed. This is an abandoned plan, rather than merely a trip lacking attendance evidence. It does not establish completion of the separately proposed treatments or course.
Carlsbad visits, massages and a Swiss invitation
The June 4 email offered spa treatment and workshop access. The June 7 chain progressed to two massage slots at 1:30 after discussion of airport arrival and Carlsbad travel. Epstein’s reply accepted the offer.
The continuation records Chopra’s acknowledgment and a later Epstein message saying he was there, without identifying the location. Its UTC header corresponds to late evening in California, not the proposed afternoon appointment. The following exchange discusses a missed dinner and another possible meeting. An accepted massage plan is established; receipt, recipients and payment remain unverified.
The November 25 invitation proposed that Epstein and women accompanying him attend Chopra’s two day workshop near Zurich during a future European tour. No travel acceptance or completed workshop attendance is established by that chain.
A wellness treatment is not evidence of a sexual service. The women’s relationship to Epstein, their ages and their consent to any proposed activity cannot be inferred from his or Chopra’s choice of words.
Comparing the proposals involving women
| Record | Action documented | Result or limit |
|---|---|---|
| Israel trip | Invitation including companions | Epstein defers |
| Israel introduction | Chopra agrees he can find a woman | No completed introduction shown |
| Canada retreat | Hotel availability checked | Epstein cancels |
| March follow up | Epstein renews the request | No identified woman or result |
| June massage slots | Offer accepted | Treatment unconfirmed |
| Swiss workshop | Invitation to Epstein and companions | Attendance unconfirmed |
| December event | Registrations confirmed | Attendance unconfirmed |
A public event with an acknowledgment of attendance
The September invitation offered Epstein guest access to Chopra’s September 27, 2017 appearance with Michael Shermer for Skeptic magazine’s anniversary at YouTube Space in New York. The accompanying logistics include Groff’s proposed guest list. A submitted name is evidence of planning, not proof that the named person arrived.
The September 27 staff instruction asked a driver to prepare the vehicle and said Epstein had told women accompanying him when he wanted to depart for the event. The instruction documents planned transport, not an independently verified departure or passenger list.
Chopra’s next message, carrying a September 28 header, thanks Epstein and Barnaby Marsh for coming that night. This provides a participant’s contemporaneous acknowledgment of attendance beyond the initial invitation. It does not verify every proposed guest or describe any private activity following the public program.
The canceled dinner and the registered event guests
The November 29 dinner chain lists Epstein, Woody Allen, Soon Yi Previn and Miroslav Lajčák as expected guests. Chopra’s later reply cancels after his initial acceptance.
The following day, Epstein proposed sending two women to Chopra’s Wall Street event. Chopra requested names. The confirmations registered two guests for the December 1 workplace mindfulness program at Goldman Sachs, organized by the Chopra Foundation and JUST Capital. Chopra also agreed to a greeting and arrival coordination by phone.
Registration is established; attendance and the greeting are not. These records identify no sexual purpose, ages or relationship between the women and Epstein.
A family introduction and a reported completed meeting
The July 15, 2018 message proposes introducing Chopra’s son in law to the correspondent, with a caveat against discussing women. The continuation settles a meeting time and later records Chopra reporting a traffic delay. On July 17, he thanks the correspondent for the previous day and says his son in law admired the person’s thinking.
The acknowledgment supports a participant’s report that a meeting occurred. The visible export labels Chopra but redacts the other participant, so identifying that person as Epstein requires attribution beyond the displayed header. Nothing in the exchange establishes an investment agreement, payment or sexual encounter involving the family member.
Research proposals, the donation and its return
The September 2017 research discussion contains V. S. Ramachandran’s estimates of $500,000 to $3 million for a larger project and $1,000 to $2,000 for a pilot. He distinguished possible university involvement from a private initiative without a UCSD connection. Chopra’s next reply asked to explore the pilot and the larger idea. These are proposed budgets and possible structures, rather than awarded grants or completed research.
Epstein’s October 18 instruction asked Richard Kahn to send $25,000 to the University of California Regents for Ramachandran’s research. Chopra’s reply requested the Chopra Foundation instead. Epstein then instructed Kahn to substitute a $50,000 foundation donation. Chopra accepted that offer. Kahn’s follow up promised a check by FedEx. Chopra’s October 20 acknowledgment confirms receipt without restating the amount.
The separate check image shows Gratitude America check 332, dated October 18, 2017, payable to the Chopra Foundation for $50,000. The front contains no stated purpose in the memo field. Its existence and the acknowledgment are stronger evidence than a prospective funding conversation, but neither supplies a bank clearance record.
The later bank record contains a $50,000 Chopra Foundation check to Gratitude America, dated July 8, 2019, with the memo “Return Donation.” The bank posting is August 14. This establishes a documented return and is essential to the financial chronology. It does not establish the reason for returning the money or how it had been held or used.
The correspondence expressly replaces the $25,000 university instruction with the $50,000 foundation donation. Counting them as two completed gifts would misstate the sequence.
Comparing the financial records
| Record | Amount | Evidentiary status |
|---|---|---|
| Research estimates | $1,000 to $2,000 pilot; $500,000 to $3 million program | Proposed budgets |
| Original instruction | $25,000 | University direction subsequently replaced |
| Replacement instruction | $50,000 | Foundation donation substituted |
| Check receipt | Not restated | Acknowledged by Chopra |
| Check 332 | $50,000 | Foundation payee; clearance unverified |
| Return donation | $50,000 | July 2019 check; August bank posting |
Continuing contact into 2019
The April 3, 2019 staff email reconfirmed a 12:30 lunch for Chopra with Epstein at his New York home. It establishes an appointment near the end of the period covered by the correspondence, without independently proving attendance. A late dated invitation also cannot establish the nature of every preceding meeting.
Chopra’s response and the scope of the record
Chopra’s October 2025 explanation to CBS described meditation for insomnia and research discussions that produced no project.
His February 4, 2026 statement, reproduced by Fast Company, said: “I was never involved in, nor did I participate in, any criminal or exploitative conduct.” He described his contact as limited and unrelated to abuse, regretted the tone of some messages and expressed support for victims and accountability.
The CNN investigation described correspondence spanning 2016 through 2019 and reported visits to residences in New York, Palm Beach and Paris. Its February report said Chopra had not been accused of wrongdoing related to Epstein. That is a dated reporting statement, not a finding resolving every possible investigation or later allegation.
The direct records establish a wider range of subjects than meditation alone: professional introductions, events, women, travel and research. They do not establish what happened in every private meeting. The scope of correspondence and the question of participation in abuse are distinct evidentiary questions.
Separate accounts concerning women
The allegations below concern Chopra’s conduct in other settings. Their existence does not connect the women to Epstein or corroborate an uncompleted proposal in the correspondence.
- Contemporary Rediff reporting records a jury rejecting Joyce Weaver’s employment claim after she alleged sexual harassment and retaliation. Chopra denied her allegations. The employment verdict does not resolve every alleged personal interaction
- The anonymous former client’s 2021 Lioness account alleges a sexual relationship during addiction recovery at the Chopra Center and harm arising from dependence and trust. The publication said it checked diary material and contemporaneous disclosures. It also expressly reported Chopra’s denial
- Moneycontrol’s February 2026 report describes Sevda Rubens’s allegation that Chopra encouraged a private late night meeting when she was sixteen. She said she declined. Her account does not allege sexual contact or a completed private meeting
Open questions
- What evidence, if any, records an introduction following Epstein’s renewed request for a woman in Israel?
- Who, if anyone, received the accepted massage appointments, and are there treatment or payment records?
- Did the registered December 1 guests attend or meet Chopra?
- Which proposed trips and residence visits have contemporaneous completion evidence beyond invitations or calendars?
- What records explain the reason for the return donation and the Foundation’s handling of the funds before their return?
- Can authenticated participant information resolve the redacted counterparts in the October 2016 and July 2018 message exports?
Related records
- Deepak Chopra: The wider profile and separate allegations
- Barnaby Marsh: The introduction and scientific network
- Miroslav Lajčák: Context for the November dinner invitation
- Epstein’s conferences and gatherings: Related event records
Full Sources
Primary records
- EFTA02458425: July 2016 introduction, page 1
- EFTA02339289: Personal interests, page 1
- EFTA01744027: Book publicity, page 1
- EFTA01744103: Proposed response, page 1
- EFTA02447957: Later book advice, page 1
- EFTA01784886: Civil allegation discussion, page 1
- EFTA01784947: Reply and scheduling, page 1
- EFTA00679040: Saudi correspondence, page 1
- EFTA02374037: Israel invitation and deferral, pages 1 and 2
- EFTA02357374: March request and reply, pages 1 and 2
- EFTA02656554: March follow up, page 2
- EFTA02656660: Sexualized exchange, page 1
- EFTA01619496: October conversation, pages 1 and 2
- EFTA01616545: October 9 reply, page 1
- EFTA02659438: Course and retreat invitation, page 1
- EFTA02368137: Course schedule, page 1
- EFTA00446314: Canada plan and cancellation, pages 1 and 2
- EFTA02346737: Spa and workshop invitation, page 1
- EFTA02394767: Massage offer, pages 1 and 2
- EFTA01044085: Acceptance, page 1
- EFTA01044107: Acknowledgment and arrival message, page 1
- EFTA02647666: Later meeting discussion, page 1
- EFTA00946474: Switzerland invitation, page 3
- EFTA00458938: September event planning, pages 1 and 2
- EFTA02602013: Thanks for attending, page 1
- EFTA02223344: Event transport instruction, page 1
- EFTA02562196: Dinner and event, pages 1, 5 and 6
- EFTA02558485: Registrations and greeting, pages 1 through 3
- EFTA01619579: Family meeting, pages 1 through 3
- EFTA01013830: Research budgets, pages 1 and 2
- EFTA00982555: Payment instruction, page 1
- EFTA00982684: Redirection, page 1
- EFTA00982904: Dispatch plan, page 1
- EFTA02580570: Replacement instruction, page 1
- EFTA02580635: Acceptance, page 1
- EFTA00711477: Receipt, page 1
- EFTA01348681: Check image, page 1
- EFTA01271124: Return donation and posting, page 160
- EFTA02279668: April 2019 lunch, page 1
Responses and reporting
- Fast Company: February 23, 2026 reporting reproducing Chopra’s statement
- CBS News: October 2025 response
- CNN: February 20, 2026 broadcast transcript
- Voice of San Diego: February 5, 2026 investigation
- Rediff: March 2000 verdict report
- Lioness: September 2021 account and denial
- Moneycontrol: February 2026 Rubens report