We are canceling our pending program in September with Jonathan Robinson on MDMA Couples Facilitation, and I wanted to share more details about why.

On June 14x, I read the article from Ecstatic Integration, by Jules Evans, strongly critiquing Jonathan’s methods, claims and representations. I immediately began a deeper investigation, at first focusing on whether Jules had treated Jonathan fairly, which I had concerns about.

After undertaking a thorough, 30+ hour investigation personally, in which I gave Jonathan the full benefit of the doubt, I found that, despite Jonathan’s promise at the beginning of the process, that he did not come clean about all past misrepresentations. When he did confess to a fuller truth in key areas, the misrepresentations he admitted to, particularly in terms of his training, research, and experience, were sufficiently serious for us to remove him from our teaching roster permanently. He admitted that he has a compulsive tendency for exaggeration and shading of the truth to his benefit. I summarized with him, “So there’s some sense of program internally that you can exaggerate the truth by 25% without calling that a lie. And that you will kind of get away with that and get some personal benefit from that.” To which Jonathan said, “That’s very accurate.”

Such a tendency, which Jonathan said has been compulsive and which he hasn’t been able to curb, even with requested help from allies, is particularly risky and problematic, I believe, in a new and less studied field.

The following pieces emerged from pressing Jonathan on specific answers and I think it’s important that they are in the public domain. I haven’t yet verified all of this, but these revised statements from Jonathan appear to be closer to the full truth in areas where he came under fire. Jonathan has reviewed these and been offered the opportunity to correct anything he felt was false or misleading and has confirmed their accuracy.

1. Master’s Work — Jonathan did not actually complete a master’s thesis according to the guidelines of UCSB which requires a final paper vetted and approved by a committee of three. Instead, he says that he did the preliminary groundwork over 16 months, leading to an approximately 10-page research paper on the findings from his administration of MDMA to higher functioning undergraduate students whose level of self-reported trauma ranged from suicide of a parent to breakup with a boyfriend. His advisor was surprised by the results and asked for a fuller study but when that was no longer possible legally, they mutually decided to have him complete an extra quarter of classes to substitute for the master’s thesis requirement. By the standards of the university, he thus did not complete a master’s thesis. He also claimed to have treated PTSD subjects in his master’s research, which he publicized in Ecstasy as Medicine, “For my Master’s thesis, I legally gave MDMA to 36 people who suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). While they were on the drug, I counseled them about their trauma. Of the 36 people I worked with, 34 said their PTSD symptoms were ‘completely or mostly gone’ six months after a single journey.” A recent in-depth study of 78,000 participants shows a 5.2% chance of the sudden death of a loved one leading to a case of PTSD and that was the most severe level of trauma he recalled. Jonathan told me that they screened out people with mental illness or instability, as his supervisor didn’t want him working with difficult cases. He still insists there were real traumas he treated but from a clinical standpoint, it seems more likely he had either zero or at most a couple of subjects who would now qualify for a PTSD diagnosis.
2. He revealed that his “interview” with the Dalai Lama happened in a group of four, with three others also asking questions. Jonathan told me the Dalai Lama did not actually address his questions directly, which means his characterization of this as an interview, which implies direct questions and answers, was something of an exaggeration. Jonathan told me that this group interview happened after a Stanford University speech on April 19, 1994, which did give sufficient time to include a real quote for the September 1, 1994 publication date of Bridges to Heaven. Instead, Jonathan used an uncited quote from a 1979 public speech of the Dalai Lama as his “contribution” to the book. This was not corrected in 1998 when the book was released under the title the Experience of God, by Hay House. So the Dalai Lama was used as a lead contributor for Jonathan’s book with an “interview,” that was actually an uncited passage from another speech, which brings into question if the Dalai Lama had any knowledge or authorized being a “contributor” and used for marketing purposes as well. It is a serious issue spiritually and ethically to use a globally respected spiritual leader without accurate attribution or sourcing.
3. Jonathan now says that his interview of Mother Teresa was more like 10 minutes, and he did not record it because it was so surprising she answered.He continues to insist it happened, although the story of her picking up a random call when she was a globally renowned Nobel Laureate remains difficult to believe without verifiable proof. A letter he received from Mother Teresa in January of 1995 does show that she thanked him for sending two copies of the printed book and blessed his work but declined an invitation for TV interviews. Jonathan assured me that letter proved he did the interview, but there is no mention of prior contact in her letter. There remain discrepancies in his public statements that make it unclear if the phone call happened before the book was published in 1993, as he said here twice on a podcast earlier this year or after the book’s publication in 1994 as he claimed in his response to Jules article, “By the time I finally interviewed Mother Teresa (by phone) and the Dalai Lama, my publisher had put the book in print. As a backup, we had secured the rights to these previous interviews--and they were included. I always felt that was unfortunate, but that's what happened.” If this interview indeed happened in 1993 or early 1994 and Jonathan took any notes, it makes it hard to understand why he would not have a direct quote from her in the book. If it happened later in 1994, after publication, which he claimed in response to Jules’ article, it’s not clear how he would have felt confident enough to list her as a Contributor before he had done an interview. The quote from her in his Bridges to Heaven book was unattributed to the actual source and that error was not addressed in the 1998 version by Hay House. So his two public claims above do not align and he said he is not able to remember things more precisely. In terms of timelines, if she indeed gave him the Dalai Lama’s number (his organization, not his personal one, he now says), it’s possible that is how he landed the group question session at Stanford but it would still mean that he had completed a short interview with Mother Teresa before publication and chose to use her name as a Contributor with no quote from the actual interview. So the truth here is incomplete but it is at least clear that he did not correctly attribute her contribution in the book and overstated the “interview” somewhat if it was short, unplanned, and undocumented.
4. Jonathan confessed that he exaggerated the number of sessions he has conducted to 800 instead of his current estimate of 500 or less MDMA journeys. Of those facilitated journeys he currently claims in the neighborhood of 20% had trauma that might be diagnosed as PTSD, as people come to him for that.My guess is that percentage is smaller as he admitted that he did not feel expert enough to characterize PTSD in at least 33% of cases and we have seen that his master’s research PTSD characterization was not accurate. His misrepresentation in his depth of experience, particularly around PTSD and complex trauma, has a negative impact on harm reduction efforts in the field. This is particularly problematic for people with PTSD who might try insufficiently supervised versions of MDMA work.
5. In the realm of other exaggerations, he told me that he often claims he has three NY Times bestselling books when he has two, went on Oprah four times instead of three, and reached 250M with publications and TV shows rather than 210M, his actual estimate.These all seem to align with the 25% exaggeration tendency he admitted to above.
6. It’s clear that his business has substantially increased as a result of the book and publicity of his trainings, as he informed me that he is booked for 9 months with 2 client journeys per week, which would be 8 times his average revised number of annual MDMA sessions from the previous 40 years.I say this to point out that all these misrepresentations, taken together, materially benefited Jonathan’s livelihood by giving him more credibility, first with the Psychedelic Society launch, then with his book and podcasts around that, then with those who enrolled in his second training, and finally with his future program with us, all of which fueled an increased demand for his personal sessions.

The first piece alone would be considered intellectual dishonesty and against the ethical guidelines of the American Association of University Professors. It would almost certainly disqualify him from teaching at a mainstream university if uncovered. For this reason alone, The Shift Network is permanently disbarring him from teaching at Shift as we require all our faculty to commit to honesty and a code of ethics from ASI and he did not uphold the core integrity and honesty commitments by misrepresenting his relevant credentials, experience, and research that supported giving him a teaching spot. Normally, I like to give people a second chance, but my investigation convinced me that was unwise. We also consider Jonathan in breach of our contract because of these misrepresentations, which in addition to the above included pitching himself as an LMFT with his initial email, when he was no longer licensed in the state of California.

With that said, I don’t want to demonize Jonathan. He’s a likable, intelligent, and warm-hearted guy. He comes across as very earnest. However, his chronic exaggerations and misrepresentations are happening in higher-risk arenas. Misrepresentation could very well lead to future harm when working in the psychedelic field. The tendency to habitually spin the truth for personal advantage appears to be a deep part of his personality that may not change easily, despite his professing that he is going to take the process seriously. He appeared to own the pattern and be contrite multiple times in my investigation but would again start the pattern up again while evading responsibility for the impact on others. It does not appear to be malicious, it’s just untenable for the role he had aspired to play which requires the highest level of integrity.

My hope is that by removing him from a teaching or representative function, which I think is wise for the psychedelic field as a whole, it will also be better for him, as he takes criticism hard. These controversies, distortions and deceptions will follow him for years and I think removing him from teaching for the foreseeable future would help insulate the field from reputational harm, while also giving him a chance to address these tendencies in his personal healing process. I think trying to wear a hat of trainer and spokesperson is not an appropriate role for someone who misled the public about his credentials, research, and experience. This means I would also not recommend featuring him on podcasts or media productions for the field at least until a public inventory and deep process of personal work and repair has been completed and validated. With that said, I suspect that he may remain skilled at his personal guiding work since he says that this tendency to exaggerate does not play out in more therapeutic settings. If we can learn something positive from his field innovations, it may still benefit the evolution of the field. The remote MDMA protocol he developed appears to be an innovation worth moving forward if it is applied to a rigorously screened group of people, excluding those with PTSD, complex trauma or mental illness and with exacting safety procedures to minimize risks.

I recommended to Jonathan that he should:

• Not try to create, manage, or direct any organization advancing the study or training in the remote MDMA method he pioneered but turn over what he has learned to someone who has impeccable credibility and believes it’s worth studying and advancing as a treatment model.
• Stop the publication and sale of Ecstasy as Medicine immediately as his misrepresentations can be risky for those who have PTSD or those who treat PTSD. PTSD clients could come away with inflated expectations of the safety of working with MDMA with a guide who isn’t trained sufficiently in trauma work.
• Make sure that if he chooses to eventually release a corrected version of his Ecstasy as Medicine book that is carefully vetted by safety experts to address the veracity of all claims and include a new foreword that directly owns all misrepresentations in the first book and how he is addressing his history of misrepresentations.
• Devote the next year to publicly owning and cleaning up exaggerations, overt lies, and misleading statements as well as undertaking a rigorous, supervised process of addressing the psychological underpinnings of these misrepresentations so that he can fully own them in a humble, contrite and honest way.

Jonathan appears to be sincere in addressing these issues and wrote, “When leading trainings about MDMA, I have come to recognize that there is a need for complete honesty and impeccability. Therefore, I am taking a sabbatical. During this time, I plan to take a fearless inventory of my past, confess any inaccurate statements, and hopefully better serve the MDMA healing community in the future.”

I do want to apologize that we didn’t discover these things about Jonathan until after we had gone public with an endorsement of his work, which did not support our goal of being the most trusted brand in transformation. I am personally sorry that I overestimated his veracity and underinvestigated his claims. It was a costly mistake for me and the company.

We are working on how best to improve our vetting of future faculty and the supervision of programs, particularly in the psychedelic field during this period of pending legalization when credibility is paramount and intellectual dishonesty or unethical behavior can be discrediting for the field as well as mislead potential patients and practitioners. One element of the plan is to create an independent advisory board that can vet potential faculty and teachings in this area.

I do want to close by honoring the journalism of Jules Evans at Ecstatic Integration to surface the research he did before we built a training program around Jonathan that could have hurt us and the field. He acted in good faith to investigate and publicize his suspicions and I honor his bravery in bringing those forward. He also did take in my critiques and is focusing on balancing his skill in critical investigative journalism, which has its role, with offering constructive suggestions for improvements, which are needed.

At the end of the day, I see the psychedelic field as vital for humanity and it needs to mature in a way that serves the healing and growth of all involved. My hope is that this episode, addressed publicly and directly, serves that maturation. I am personally humbled by these events and am open to further input for how we can contribute to the field in a way that truly serves the greatest good.

— Stephen Dinan, CEO of The Shift Network