[Shanti Om]

Friends,

I’ve been quietly reading this discussion and wanted to offer my perspective.

First, some context.

I ate meat during the first part of my life, but for the last 33 years I have been vegetarian, approximately 98% plant-based, about 50% raw food, almost entirely organic, and I grow a great deal of my own food on my own Space of Love.

So I’m not speaking theoretically. I’ve lived this way for decades.

I also want to acknowledge that there are many thoughtful people in this discussion. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who continue to eat meat. Most of us inherited our dietary habits from our families, cultures, and societies. I certainly did.

However, after reflecting on this subject for many years, I continue to arrive at the same conclusion:

If a Human being can thrive without killing an animal, then what spiritual justification remains for doing so?

To me, this is the central question.

Anastasia’s position appears remarkably clear. There is very little ambiguity in her words. In our pristine origins, Human beings were not killing animals for food. Animals were not viewed as commodities. They were viewed as companions, co-creators, brothers and sisters within Creation. This is Divine Nutrition that Anastasia talks about repeatedly.

The discussion often becomes focused on exceptions, edge cases, and practical difficulties. Those are important conversations, but I think they sometimes distract us from the larger principle.

A useful way to think about this is through a spectrum.

Nothing in life is completely free of impact. Every choice exists on a scale.

For example, imagine a karmic scale.

I’m not claiming these numbers are literal. They are simply an illustration.

Imagine that eating industrially produced meat from a grocery store or fast-food restaurant sits near the highest end of the food-related spectrum because it involves breeding, confinement, suffering, transportation, slaughter, and consumption.

A vegetarian diet may carry far less impact.

A plant-based diet less still.

A raw food diet less still.

A fruitarian diet lower again.

Someone who waits for fruit to naturally ripen and be freely given by the tree creates less disturbance than someone who forcibly removes unripe fruit.

The exact numbers do not matter.

The principle matters.

The more force involved, the more impact.

The more harm involved, the more impact.

The more conscious our choices become, the less impact they create.

This spectrum extends beyond food.

It includes honey.

It includes leather.

It includes fur, even faux fur.

It includes how we speak.

Even common phrases such as “kill two birds with one stone” subtly normalize harm toward animals. A more conscious alternative might be “feed two birds with one seed.”

Small things matter because consciousness is built from small things.

Food, however, remains unique.

Most of us purchase clothing occasionally.

Most of us build or choose shelter only a handful of times in our lives.

But food is a choice we make multiple times every single day.

Food becomes one of the most repeated spiritual acts in a Human life.

Some people ask:

“What about bulls, roosters, male calves, and population management?”

These are legitimate questions.

But many of these issues arise because Humans created breeding systems that continually produce surplus animals.

As more people move away from animal consumption, fewer animals will be intentionally bred into those systems.

The problem gradually diminishes.

Others ask:

“What about predators?”

Predators kill because they must.

Humans in most developed societies do not.

A wolf has no vegetable garden.

A wolf has no grocery store.

A wolf has no capacity to reflect on ethics.

Humans do.

A Human being has the ability to reflect, choose, and alter behavior.

Humans possess moral agency.

The fact that something occurs in nature does not automatically make it the highest expression of Human consciousness.

Nature contains beauty.

Nature contains cooperation.

Nature also contains disease and violence.

The question is not what exists in nature.

The question is what we choose to embody.

I often hear people say that vegans and vegetarians look unhealthy.

Some do.

But many meat eaters look unhealthy as well.

The comparison should not be between unhealthy vegans and healthy omnivores.

It should be between healthy versions of each lifestyle.

Doritos are vegan.

Oreos are vegan.

Coca-Cola is vegan.

Vegan junk food exists.

That does not make plant-based nutrition unhealthy.

In my experience, many long-term vegetarians and plant-based people possess remarkable vitality, clarity, softness, and beauty.

Not only physical beauty.

Energetic beauty.

Emotional beauty.

There is a cleanliness to their energy that becomes difficult to ignore.

The longest-living population studied in the United States, the Seventh-day Adventists of Loma Linda who are vegetarian, have demonstrated this repeatedly.

Likewise, many elite athletes have shown that strength, endurance, and athletic excellence do not require meat. Some of the best athletes, including the strongest man in the world are on plant-based diets! Don’t believe me? Watch the movie the Game Changers.

Another concern is nutrient density.

This concern is valid.

Modern food systems have depleted our soils.

But this is an argument for rebuilding soil, not for eating animals.

There is a tremendous difference between conventionally grown produce, organic produce, biodynamic produce, permaculture produce, and food grown in a Space of Love through ‘spiritual permaculture’.

The future lies in regenerating soil, restoring minerals, rebuilding mycelial networks, and growing truly living food again.

The upside there is enormous.

There is another dimension to this discussion that is rarely acknowledged.

Animals suffer.

Not merely at the moment of death.

During life.

Many are confined.

Many experience fear.

Many experience stress.

Many experience conditions that no Human would willingly accept for themselves.

When we purchase meat, we participate in that system.

Directly or indirectly.

And whether one views this biologically, emotionally, spiritually, or energetically, I believe those experiences matter.

Food carries more than calories.

It carries information.

It carries vibration.

It carries experience.

Many animals understand far more than we give them credit for.

Anyone who has spent significant time around animals knows this.

Which brings me to the idea of the “loving farmer.”

I agree that a loving farmer is preferable to industrial agriculture.

Without question.

But I do not believe that “more loving” automatically becomes “ethical.”

If we define ethics as the right of a Human being to intentionally end the life of a sentient creature, then perhaps our definition of ethics deserves further examination.

Some would say:

“But I kill the animal respectfully.”

Others would say:

“I hunt my own meat.”

Others would say:

“I thank the animal.”

These may indeed be more conscious approaches.

But if we are debating the least harmful way to kill an animal, we have already accepted the premise that the animal must be killed.

I do not accept that premise.

To me, the question is not:

“What is the kindest way to kill an animal?”

The question is:

“Why kill the animal at all if we can thrive without doing so?”

That is where my own journey has ultimately led me.

I am not interested in judging anyone.

Every Human must choose their own path.

But I do believe that as consciousness expands, compassion naturally expands with it.

And when compassion expands far enough, eventually we begin seeing animals not as resources, but as fellow participants in Creation.

For me, that is what this discussion ultimately comes down to.

With love,

Shanti