In an era saturated with voices promising liberation from traditional education and offering spiritual or intellectual “awakening,” it is vital to look beyond the surface and ask: what exactly is being sold, and at what cost?
This is not a critique of education itself, nor a dismissal of legitimate alternative pedagogies. It is, rather, a rigorous examination of a growing cultural pattern—a model of thought and influence—that exploits genuine discontent, feeds on fear and confusion, and ultimately undermines the very foundations of critical thinking and ethical responsibility.
This critique aims to foster constructive dialogue rather than to condemn indiscriminately. It recognises that alternative mentorship models may offer genuine value to some; however, caution and rigorous scrutiny remain essential to safeguard against potential harm.
This analysis focuses on a particular model characterised by a lack of accreditation and opaque methodologies; it does not condemn all alternative mentorship indiscriminately. Nuanced understanding is crucial, and each approach should be evaluated on its own merits and ethical standards.
We live in a time where personal branding and self-declared authority often substitute for accredited expertise and transparent accountability. This is a systemic phenomenon, not a personal failing. The problem is not one mentor or speaker, but the ecosystem that enables and rewards the blending of charisma with ambiguity, intuition with unsubstantiated claims, and care with commerce.
This model functions through:
It is important to acknowledge that alternative approaches to education and mentorship can provide meaningful benefits when grounded in transparency, accountability, and evidence-based practices. This discussion does not dismiss all such initiatives but calls for discernment to distinguish credible efforts from those that jeopardise well-being.
I recently stumbled upon a scene that was, in its own way, unintentionally charming—almost like watching a child proudly recite a poem they barely understand. It was amusing enough to raise a smile, yet carried a subtle note of melancholy. The scene featured a figure who describes herself as a mentor and leader of a club for what she calls “awakened souls.” Until quite recently, she shared a steady stream of self-portraits—sometimes just minutes apart—interspersed with free-form reflections. More recently (perhaps inspired by a shift in focus), she has embraced what she earnestly calls her “Sisyphean, labour-intensive” videos—a nod to the endless, repetitive toil of Sisyphus from Greek mythology. In these videos, she reads—sometimes with fluency, sometimes less so—passages from a book she evidently completed, frequently emphasising its author, whose work she presents with unmistakable enthusiasm. The centrepiece of her pride seems to be the sheer scale of the work: a substantial 900 pages, delivered in her distinctive style, one excerpt at a time.
It was rather like watching someone parade around in a doctor’s white coat after having read aloud a few pages from a medical textbook—full of confidence, yet entirely untouched by the depth of the subject. Although, perhaps I’m not making the most accurate comparison here, as this isn’t a scientific medical book but rather an author’s perspective. It’s rather like, as is the case here, using a Stephen King novel to justify dismissing any other genre of literature altogether.
True mentorship demands more than the mechanical repetition of others' work. It requires critical engagement, contextual understanding, and the ability to translate knowledge into practical, tailored guidance. Simply reading passages from a lengthy book—no matter how revered the author—without original insight or dialogue falls short of what mentorship truly entails.
What she actually advocates, however, is profoundly worrying. This self-styled mentor fervently promotes the notion that traditional schooling is not only unnecessary but actively detrimental to children’s well-being and development. Despite possessing no formal qualifications or any recognised accreditation, she charges exorbitant fees for vague “support” across a range of subjects, including training others to become mentors in her likeness. She even issues certificates that have no genuine value or official recognition—a brazen attempt to lend her enterprise a veneer of legitimacy.
Her approach is particularly dangerous because it seeks to undermine established educational systems without presenting any credible alternatives, placing children at real risk of being deprived of a proper education. If not this, then what? If the school system is to be torn down, where is the blueprint for what comes next? Vulnerable individuals and families are left exposed to misleading claims, and the consequences for the children caught in the middle can be severe. This reckless combination of arrogance and exploitation reveals not only a blatant disregard for professional standards but also a troubling readiness to profit from misinformation and misplaced trust, ultimately putting children’s futures in jeopardy. This is not an abstract danger. This is a direct threat to their future.
While specific evidence regarding individual mentors is indeed available and can be presented upon request, this article’s purpose is not to conduct personal exposés but to highlight a broader cultural pattern and systemic risks inherent in the unchecked rise of unaccredited mentorship.
We see similar patterns with certain influential “gurus” on social media who promise quick fixes for personal development or financial success without clear methodology or proven results. How many more will hand over their time, trust, and money before asking for proof?
One such figure frequently promises ‘magical’ transformations through month-long courses, yet offers no evidence of genuine progress or continued support for participants. These practices often lead to disappointment and greater uncertainty among those seeking help.
Another case involves a well-known “mentor” who relies mainly on rhetoric and vague platitudes while blocking any criticism or questions that might expose a lack of genuine expertise. This behaviour isn’t accidental — it’s designed to maintain the illusion of “higher wisdom” and prevent genuine dialogue.
This approach risks reducing complex ideas into flat narratives, devoid of the nuance and reflection essential for genuine growth. It is not, in itself, mentorship—and certainly not a valid argument for expertise or guidance. Mentorship requires active, responsible engagement, not passive consumption or superficial association with authority.
Social media platforms and their underlying algorithms often amplify charismatic but unqualified voices, facilitating the spread of misinformation and making it increasingly difficult for users to discern credible mentorship from misleading claims. This digital dynamic necessitates heightened media literacy among consumers and greater responsibility from platform providers to curb the propagation of harmful content.
When education is reduced to ideology, and mentorship to performance, the consequences ripple far beyond the individual consumer—they affect families, communities, and especially children. Children deprived of a pluralistic, evidence-based education become vulnerable to ideological isolation. They lose not just knowledge, but their right to develop independent thought and autonomy.
Moreover, the impact of these unverified mentorship models extends beyond academic deficits. Without professional guidance, individuals risk emotional distress and social withdrawal, with long-term effects that extend beyond the immediate educational context. They can contribute to psychological distress, social isolation, and diminished interpersonal skills, as vulnerable individuals may become detached from supportive networks or entrenched in harmful belief systems. The absence of professional oversight heightens these risks, making the consequences deeply personal as well as societal.
This is no longer a private matter of parental choice—it is a societal concern requiring clear ethical standards and accountability frameworks. The refusal to engage transparently with questions of qualification, methodology, and limits is a red flag—not an expression of “higher wisdom.”
It is imperative that regulatory bodies, educational institutions, and professional organisations establish clearer frameworks for oversight and accreditation of mentorship practices. Leaving the regulation solely to market forces or individual choice fails to protect the most vulnerable and undermines public trust. A collaborative approach involving government, civil society, and experts is essential to uphold standards and safeguard well-being.
The antidote to this pattern is not rejection of all alternative ideas or systems but the reclamation of critical thinking as a foundational value. Real autonomy does not mean turning away from schools or experts—it means demanding openness, evidence, dialogue, and humility.
A new narrative is needed—one that:
We are witnessing a cultural evolution—one full of paradoxes and contradictions. Movements claiming to “free” minds often trap followers in narrow, dogmatic frameworks. Those offering “care” may sometimes operate under unexamined self-interest or unresolved wounds, projecting personal narratives as universal truths.
This is a crucial observation, not a personal attack. It invites ongoing reflection on how communities of care can grow healthier by embracing transparency and accountability, not by defending illusions.
True influence withstands scrutiny—it does not fear questions or accountability. The goal is not to “win” against any person but to reclaim the cultural ground of critical thought and ethical mentorship.
To those who feel discomfort reading this: that is not a flaw, but a signal that your discernment is awakening. This is not bitterness or elitism, but a call to thoughtful vigilance—because the future of education, mentorship, and child welfare depends on it.
If we fail to question, to demand transparency and evidence, we risk trading genuine freedom for a curated illusion—and that is a cage, no matter how gilded the bars.
If we allow this shallow shadow of knowledge, like the example I have offered, to replace genuine dialogue and evidence, we risk living not in a world of freedom but in a theatre of illusions—where the puppeteers pull the strings, and we are the scripted audience, applauding a counterfeit performance.
Let us ask ourselves this question: do we want to leave the minds and futures of our children in the hands of those who shirk responsibility, or do we demand true knowledge, honesty, and care? The choice is ours — and it will shape the future of our children. If you want to be part of the change: stay critically informed, support open discussions, and encourage genuine dialogue. Join this growing platform, which is just beginning to open up, or any similar one, or start conversations within your own community. Together, we can build a more meaningful and responsible culture—one where every voice is valued and respected, free from the dominance of self-proclaimed ‘enlightened’ figures.
This piece is part of an ongoing series aimed at cultivating an intellectual space where questions are welcomed, not shamed; where influence is accompanied by responsibility; and where wisdom emerges from evidence, ethics, and respect for individual sovereignty. The platform is still evolving and is open to future collaboration with like-minded initiatives.
It is also important to recognise that those offering alternative mentorship approaches can benefit from openness to feedback and a willingness to engage in constructive criticism. Growth and improvement come from dialogue, reflection, and accountability. Encouraging such a mindset fosters a healthier mentorship culture for all involved.
If this article has sparked your curiosity or concern, don’t keep it to yourself. Share it with your friends, family, and wider community to raise awareness about the dangers of unqualified mentors. And most importantly, continue to educate yourself and others on the importance of critical thinking, transparency, and genuine expertise in mentorship and education. Together, we can foster a culture that values responsibility over illusion and safeguard the future of our children.
What remains clear is that the conversation has already moved beyond the echo chambers and curated audiences. While the spotlight remains fixed on familiar faces and rehearsed narratives, a profound and nuanced dialogue is unfolding quietly—but decisively—among thinkers, educators, and concerned citizens. This dialogue is marked by rigor, evidence, and a relentless pursuit of truth.
To those within the familiar mentor and influencer circle who assume their influence is unquestioned: be aware that beyond your view, your claims are being carefully scrutinised. The era of unchecked authority wrapped in charisma must now be reined in.
This is not a threat, but a promise—a signal that the true measure of mentorship and knowledge lies not in applause or spectacle, but in enduring scrutiny and accountability. The question remains: will those who trade in illusion listen before the tide turns?