If you caught any of the starry-eyed magazine profiles about “orgasmic meditation” workshops around 2014, you might remember OneTaste as one of those San Francisco oddities—part spiritual commune, part startup, wrapped in candlelight and buzzwords about empowerment. But as outlined in the Associated Press’s coverage, the reality, according to a federal jury, played out with far less tranquility—and significantly less choice.
When Mindfulness Retreats Become Work Camps
A Brooklyn jury on Monday convicted OneTaste’s founder Nicole Daedone and former sales director Rachel Cherwitz of forced labor conspiracy after only two days of deliberation. Drawing from testimony during the monthlong trial, the AP describes how prosecutors argued the pair managed a yearslong scheme targeting primarily vulnerable followers, many reportedly survivors of sexual trauma. These adherents, according to court accounts cited by the AP, were manipulated into working unpaid and pressured into explicit acts—sometimes with investors or clients—all couched as necessary steps toward enlightenment or demonstrating commitment to the cause.
Prosecutors told the court, as summarized by the outlet, that Daedone and Cherwitz wielded psychological, financial, and even sexual leverage over OneTaste members. Some members, described in the AP report, were told to take out new credit cards to keep paying for increasingly expensive company courses—a striking twist for an organization that claimed, publicly, that “sexual consent is sacred.” How much “personal growth” requires signature on a loan application, one wonders?
The Glow of the Early Days, the Glare of the Present
OneTaste’s evolution from a San Francisco self-help commune in 2005 to a multi-city operation seemed, at first, to capture a certain cultural zeitgeist. The company framed female orgasms as the gateway to wellness and deep interpersonal connection, with “orgasmic meditation” sessions, as described in the AP, involving men manually stimulating women in group settings. Favorable media coverage throughout the 2010s helped OneTaste grow from Los Angeles to London, its brand shimmering with the promise of sexual empowerment.
But, as the AP documents, Daedone sold her stake in 2017—just before questions about the company’s labor and marketing practices sparked scrutiny. After four weeks in court, the jury needed little time to reach a verdict. According to the report, the company’s current owners claim the charges stem from misunderstanding and insist that consent has always been foundational, though no new public comment was available at the time.
Can an organization pivot from controversy simply by rebranding as the Institute of OM Foundation, or does the past linger longer than a fresh coat of spiritual terminology might suggest?
Where’s the Line Between Transformation and Coercion?
Every decade seems to rediscover that enlightenment, sold as a service, can turn a tidy profit—particularly on the West Coast. But the OneTaste case invites a closer look at how ideals of empowerment can quietly tip into exploitation when there’s a strong personality (or profit motive) at the helm. The AP highlights how prosecutors described a culture where “questionable acts” were rationalized as exercises in devotion, and boundaries became negotiable—if not outright erased.
Is it inevitable that any movement promising transformation will attract those more interested in power than well-being? With a defense built around Daedone’s status as a “ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur,” the outcome suggests juries are less interested in branding and more in actions. And when members are instructed that taking on debt is the path to “freedom,” does it cross anyone’s mind—at least the non-enlightened—just how these definitions keep expanding to fit the leader’s needs?
The wellness industry, after all, seems inexhaustible in its supply of “gurus,” each with a unique path to fulfillment (for a fee, naturally). OneTaste’s story might seem particularly extreme, but how many similar stories pass unnoticed, only lacking the scale or spotlight to reach a courtroom?
With so many group leaders promising transcendence, is there really a foolproof way to distinguish between genuine self-discovery and disguised servitude before the façade cracks? At least in this case, the promises of empowerment now come with a federal verdict attached—a little more precedent, a little less mystery.
