In March, Indian spiritual leader Sadhguru launched a 13,000-mile motorcycle journey from London to India to promote his Save Soil movement, aimed at raising awareness about global soil degradation. The campaign has gained traction internationally, with Sadhguru addressing the UN and the World Economic Forum, and securing collaborations with organizations like the UN World Food Programme.
However, despite its global reach, the Save Soil campaign has been criticized for its vague methodology, lack of scientific backing, and failure to address systemic issues like industrial agriculture and climate change. Critics argue that Sadhguru’s approach oversimplifies the causes of soil degradation, ignoring the impact of large-scale corporate farming, deforestation, and exploitative land use policies.
Environmental activists and scientists have challenged the movement’s proposed solutions, particularly its rigid focus on increasing soil organic content to an arbitrary 3-6% threshold. Experts argue that soil health is complex and varies by region, making a one-size-fits-all approach ineffective. Critics also point out that the movement avoids addressing corporate and governmental responsibility, instead pushing vague, non-confrontational policy recommendations that allow polluting industries to appear supportive without meaningful action—essentially enabling greenwashing.
Sadhguru himself has faced significant controversy over his environmental initiatives. His Cauvery Calling campaign, which aimed to plant trees along the Cauvery River, was criticized for promoting an ecologically harmful afforestation model that ignored the needs of local ecosystems. His Isha Foundation has also been accused of illegal land grabs, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where its headquarters were allegedly built on protected elephant habitat. Indian activists, including climate leader Disha Ravi, have accused him of exploiting environmental causes for personal publicity while aligning himself with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and India’s Hindu nationalist government.
Beyond environmental issues, Sadhguru’s broader activities have raised concerns. His foundation has been accused of operating with a cult-like structure, where followers are encouraged to devote significant time and money, often with little transparency about how donations are used. Despite positioning himself as an enlightened spiritual leader, his close ties to authoritarian political figures and corporate elites suggest a prioritization of influence over genuine activism.
While soil degradation is a pressing global issue, experts warn that Save Soil offers a superficial narrative that distracts from deeper systemic challenges. Without addressing the role of industrial agriculture, corporate exploitation, and climate change, critics argue that the movement may serve more as a vehicle for Sadhguru’s personal brand than a legitimate environmental solution.
