Sexual Violence – The Shiloh Project

Genesis 14: Could Lot Potentially Be a Victim of Attempted Sexual Enslavement or Attempted Wartime Rape?

by Johanna Stiebert on February 17, 2025

Today’s post is by Victoria Mildenhall. The featured image is The Capture of Lot, by James Dabney McCabe, 1842-1883.

Victoria studied for her undergraduate degree with the Open University and went on to complete two Masters degrees in Ancient Religion with Theology and Criminology. She is due to begin a PhD at Leeds University under the supervision of Johanna Stiebert (Biblical Studies) and Sam Lewis (Criminology and Criminal Justice), focussing on models of justice in the Bible that respond to instances of sexual violation.

The narrative of Genesis 14:1-24, recounting Lot’s kidnapping and rescue, is intriguing to biblical scholars for multiple reasons. Firstly, Abra(ha)m[1] is depicted here as a community leader and warrior, which is not the case in some other parts of scripture, which show him as a rather more solitary figure, or in domestic, family dynamics. Secondly, it contains one of very few biblical references to Melchizedek and this is the only instance where this mysterious priest-king appears in person.[2] Thirdly, the passage contains cultural, theological, political and topographical hints that might yield clues for the interpretation of surrounding passages.

When it comes to analysing sexual violence in the Hebrew Bible, however, this pericope is most often overlooked, probably due to its abundant ambiguities, including where the intention of Lot’s kidnappers is concerned. Yet, by examining the narrative of Genesis 14 inter-textually in the light of scriptures and themes in its close proximity, I will argue that Lot narrowly avoids becoming a victim of sexual enslavement, or wartime rape. Four points provide the rationale for my assertion: surrounding and associated scriptures that depict or suggest sexual violation; scriptural condemnation levelled at sexual practices of neighbouring peoples, particularly the Canaanites; the presentation of Lot; and the use of the Hebrew term lqh.

The first part of Genesis 14 describes a political conflict raging throughout the region. A coalition of four kings, led by King Chedorlaomer of Elam, wages war with five cities south of the Dead Sea after they rebel (14:1-9). Things are going badly for the rebels when some fall into the bitumen pits and the rest flee to the hill country (v.10). This creates an opportunity for Chedorlaomer and his cohort; they plunder Sodom and Gomorrah, taking goods, possessions, and the inhabitants, presumably as enslaved people, including Lot and his household (14:11-12, 16). One individual escapes and reports the events to Abra(ha)m, who gathers a military unit of three hundred and eighteen men and goes in pursuit (14:13-14). In a night-time battle, Abra(ha)m and his men successfully rescue Lot and his possessions (14:15-16). Rather than keeping the plunder and enslaving any captives, Abra(ha)m returns them to the King of Sodom and is blessed by Melchizedek, to whom Abra(ha)m pays a tithe (14:17-20).

Is Abra(ha)m making a strategic point here? Is he communicating that he does not want to be implicated in any way in the horrors from which he has rescued his nephew, Lot? And if so, what might these horrors be? I argue that Lot was rescued from sexual violence, such as rape, or sexual enslavement.

The first reason that this passage might be included among texts of the Hebrew Bible suggestive of sexual aggression and violence is its proximity to other such passages, including two of male-on-male violence or, at the very least, male-on-male sexualised impropriety and domination: the first is the odd story fragment of Ham and his naked father Noah (Genesis 9:20-25), and the second, the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah following a threat of male-male rape (Genesis 19:5). Other examples of sexual violence are Lot’s daughters’ violation of their father (Genesis 19:30-38) and the narrative of Abra(ha)m telling Pharaoh that Sarai (=Sarah)[3] is his sister so that Pharaoh “takes” her (Genesis 12:10-20). It is against this wider background of rape-threats and violations that we find the pericope of Lot’s kidnap.

Secondly, biblical references to Canaanite people are repeatedly accompanied by aspersions as to their sexual immorality and depravity (e.g. Leviticus 18:3; Deuteronomy 20:18; 1 Kings 14:24). Targeting Abra(ha)m’s nephew for sexual enslavement or rape would fit into this picture. There is a pronounced connection in the Hebrew Bible between foreign gods, including those of Canaan, and sexual immorality. Idolatry and worship of other gods are metaphorically associated with adultery in several of the prophetic texts (Hosea 1-2; Ezekiel 16 and 23), and Israel is explicitly warned against both foreign gods and sexual impropriety to preserve collective identity and holiness (Leviticus 18). The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), where Lot reappears in a later narrative, also associates Canaanite cities with very negative qualities, be this the threat of male-male rape or inhospitality (Greenough, 2021, p.21).

Thirdly, in all of his appearances in the Hebrew Bible, Lot is shown to be vulnerable. In Genesis 13:11 he separates from Abra(ha)m, which might reflect a theological and ideological separation between (favoured) uncle and (wanting) nephew, with the narrator emphasising distance between them. In the narrative in Genesis 14, Lot has failed in protecting his household; he is in a position of responsibility, and he has not lived up to this role – hence, Abra(ha)m has to rescue him. In the later narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot is under pressure, going so far as to offer up his own daughters to a mob of threatening men (Genesis 19:8). He cannot save himself or his family; Lot’s own sons-in-law don’t take him seriously (Genesis 19:14); divine messengers intervene to save Lot together with his wife and daughters; even then, Lot dithers (Genesis 19:16). He is portrayed as thoroughly ineffectual.[4]

It might be that the men of Sodom assault Lot in a sexualised manner when he is negotiating with them. The wording describing their interaction is unusual: “Then they pressed hard against the man Lot…” (Genesis 19:9, NRSV). Whatever is going on here, it could be sexually threatening, or, at least, threatening to Lot’s masculinity. Notably (and, arguably, superfluously) Lot is called “the man Lot”. Moreover, to protect his visitors and – presumably – himself also, Lot resorts to offering the mob in Sodom a sexual substitute: his own daughters, whom he identifies as virgins (Genesis 19:8). The offer of his own daughters, whom he ought to protect, is frightful. It also indicates both the acute danger of the situation and the sexually charged nature of the threat.

Finally, it is significant that Lot is the victim of his own daughters’ sexual violation when he is drunk and they, in turn, exploit his lack of awareness to conceive sons with him (Genesis 19:30-38). Again, Lot is rendered vulnerable here; he is exploited for sex.

Chris Greenough observes, “Hegemonic masculinity promotes attitudes, behaviours and regulation within society and culture that all serve to perpetuate notions of men as strong, powerful, warrior-like and consequently, the opposite of a victim” (2021, p.13). Lot repeatedly falls short, including in terms of implied notions of hegemonic masculinity. It is Abra(ha)m who acts as warrior and rescuer – that is, as masculine. Lot, however, needs to be rescued – first by Abra(ha)m (Genesis 14), and then by the divine messengers (Genesis 19). Lot is unable to protect his visitors or his family. He is repeatedly threatened in sexual and sexualised ways (Genesis 19:9, 33, 35) – including, I am proposing in Genesis 14.

In terms of the implied gender ideology of Genesis a man who is overpowered, including sexually overpowered, is a man whose masculinity is diminished. Lot is repeatedly shown to be overpowered – and dramatically so here where Abra(ha)m rescues him. Once more, Lot fails as a man; later, he cannot defend himself against his violent neighbours (whom he calls “brothers”, Genesis 19:7), or against his own daughters (Genesis 19:31-36): he certainly can’t stand up to the armies of several kings. He is completely in their power and control.

The final indicator that sexual violation is implied in Genesis 14 is the occurrence of the Hebrew verbal root lqh (lamed-qoph-chet, Genesis 14:12). This widely used verb is most often translated with variants of “to take”.[5] Relevant to my enquiry, lqh is also used to indicate taking for sex and rape: Sarai (=Sarah) is taken by Pharaoh (Genesis 12:19), and the verb also pertains to the kidnap and rape of Dinah by Shechem (Genesis 34:2). Sandie Gravett (2004) proposes that lqh can be used in instances where force and violence apply, including and prominently where sexual violation is implied.

In Genesis 14, those who are “taken” (including Lot) appear to be taken for purposes of enslavement. Just like the other goods that are seized (Genesis 14:11-12) they become the victors’ property. As enslaved persons, whether they be male or female, they would have no agency and, consequently, no say over their bodies, including any right of refusal of rape. Moreover, in war and so-called conquest, sexual violence of those who are overpowered is no rarity – as is evidenced widely in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Numbers 31:9-18; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Judges 5:30, and many other examples), as well as in distressing events right up to the present. Gender is irrelevant, as rape is not about attraction or desire, but about dominance and humiliation. There are plenty of biblical indications of males humiliated in war and conquest, including in sexualised ways (e.g. Judges 16:25; 1 Samuel 31:4; Lamentations 5:13).

In summary, four key aspects underline my argument for including Genesis 14:1-24 in discourses of sexual violence and violation in the Hebrew Bible. In this case, the attempted sexual violation is perpetrated by men (the forces led by Chedorlaomer) against a man (Lot). First, surrounding narratives establish a thematic foundation for sexual violation; and secondly, Canaan and its people are prominently characterised as deviant. Third, Lot is juxtaposed with Abra(ha)m, and consistently falls short of him; Lot emerges as vulnerable and ineffectual – in other words, as inadequately masculine and as vulnerable, including as vulnerable to sexual aggression. This vulnerability is demonstrated also by the way he is threatened at Sodom and violated by his own daughters (Genesis 19). Finally, the use of lqh can be suggestive of kidnapping as well as sexual violation. Collectively, this points to, or at least strongly hints at, Lot in Genesis 14 being at risk of enslavement and, therewith, – not for the last time – at risk of sexual violence.

References

Gravett, S. (2004) Reading ‘Rape’ in the Hebrew Bible: A Consideration of Language, JSOT 28, no. 3 (2004): 279-99.

Greenough, C. (2021) The Bible and Sexual Violence Against Men. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

[1] Abraham, as he is better known, is named “Abram” up until YHWH changes his name in the course of a covenant agreement (see Genesis 17:5).

[2] Melchizedek is a name made up of two Hebrew words meaning “king” and “righteous.” The name occurs also in Psalm 110:4 and in the New Testament, in Hebrews 7. Additionally, allusions to Melchizedek appear in the so-called Melchizedek Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelch or 11Q13).

[3] As part of the covenant (see note 1), God renames Sarai “Sarah” and blesses her (Genesis 17:15-16).

[4] Possibly, Lot had defected to the customs or gods of Sodom. Abra(ha)m steps in and attempts to negotiate with YHWH. Although Abra(ha)m falls short of asking specifically for YHWH to spare his nephew, he effectively asks YHWH to evaluate for himself whether Lot counts as a righteous man (18:23-33).

[5] See NRSV ad loc: “they also took Lot…”.

What has the Bible to do with Deepfake Porn?

by Tasia Scrutton on February 12, 2025

Today’s post is by Tasia Scrutton. Tasia is an Associate Professor at the University of Leeds and Director of the Centre for Philosophy of Religion and Theology.

The Book of Daniel recounts the story of Susanna, a married woman who is spied on by two lecherous old men while she is bathing (chapter 13). [1] Realising that they both lust after her, the men conspire to blackmail her to have sex with her. When she refuses, the men have her arrested, claiming that they saw her have sex under a tree with a young man – a ‘crime’ punishable by stoning.

Just as she is about to be put to death, Daniel – the hero of the book – interrupts, arguing that the men should be interrogated to ensure that the sentence is just. Daniel separates the two men, asking each of the men what kind of tree they saw Susanna have sex under. The first claims to have seen Susanna and her lover under a mastic tree, the second under an evergreen oak. Mastic trees are small while oaks are large; the disparity between their accounts makes it clear that they are lying and that Susanna is innocent.

The court case against Susanna involves humiliating her: the old men demand that she remove her veil in court ‘so as to sate themselves with her beauty’, and she has to submit to them both putting their hands on her head when they testify against her (Daniel 13:32 – 34). We do not know whether the story of Susanna was based on a historical episode, but it seems reasonable to think that the background state of affairs that it relates (that a woman would be stoned for alleged adultery; that the burden of proof would be on her in court to prove her innocence; that she may have been subject to humiliation during the trial) reflect the time at which it was written, the second century BCE.[2]

Despite the geographical and historical distance between this narrative and our own contemporary context, there are remarkable similarities between Susanna’s story and an all-too-real, horrifying case today. On Sunday the BBC News recounted the story of Hannah, a young woman in Australia. Hannah discovered a website called ‘The Destruction of Hannah’, which involved hundreds of photographs of her face that had been taken from social media and stitched on to violent, pornographic pictures. The website also involved polls in which hundreds of people had voted on vicious ways they wanted to abuse her. Included on the website were Hannah’s full name, her Instagram handle, the suburb she lived in and, as Hannah later found out, her phone number.[3]

Like Susanna, Hannah had an ally – in Hannah’s case in her partner Kris, with whom she set about trying to find the culprit. Kris found photographs of other women on the website who were the couple’s friends, and the couple realised that the person who posted them and created the website must be someone they knew. Eventually they whittled it down to one person, Andy, a ‘friend’ in common with the different women whose images appeared on the website.

But also like Susanna, much less happily, it turned out that the justice system was biased against Hannah. Hannah recounted her shock when she reported Andy at the police station: “We thought they’d go grab him that afternoon”, but instead she was met with disdain. One police officer asked what she had done to Andy; another suggested that Hannah simply ask him to stop. Little was done by the police to protect Hannah, and her own innocence was even called into question when she reported the crime. In so doing, the police were perpetuating a common myth of rape culture: that the victim of sexual violence must have ‘asked for it’ in some way, whether by dressing in a certain way, or doing something to hurt or anger the perpetrator.

Like Susanna, Hannah’s case also involved humiliation from the legal system that should have been protecting her: one police officer even pointed to a picture of her in a skimpy outfit and said “You look cute in this one”. Because of the lack of adequate police response, Hannah and Kris spent £10,200 in order to hire a digital forensics analyst and a lawyer, and lived for a significant period with cameras all around their house, a knife by each side of their bed, and location tracking on all Hannah’s electronic devices. Kris monitored the pornographic website in case there was any sign of escalation while Hannah reported that “I stopped having windows open because I was scared…. The world for you just gets smaller. You don’t speak to people. You don’t really go out”. Another of Andy’s victims, Jess, told the court at which Andy was eventually sentenced that, “The world feels unfamiliar and dangerous, I am constantly anxious, I have nightmares when I am able to sleep”.[4]

The Book of Daniel was written over two thousand years ago, and it is tempting to assume that the circumstances of women have improved since then. And in many parts of the world, in many respects, they have. Since 1882 women in the UK have been able to buy, sell and own property; since 1928 they have been able to vote on the same terms as men and regardless of social class; since 1991 rape within marriage has been recognised as rape and considered a crime. But in other respects women in every part of the world are still subject to many of the oppressive patriarchal circumstances recounted in the tale of Susanna. They are still subject to sexual violence, harassment and abuse; the burden of proof is often still on them to prove their innocence and/or the perpetrator’s guilt; legal systems are often still biased against them, and humiliate and blame rather than protect them. As Hannah and Jess’ reports highlight, women are still often forced to retreat into small and private spheres, not because the law explicitly dictates it, but because the ongoing threat of sexual violence so often makes it the only comfortable and safe-seeming place to be. Stories like these tell us that getting justice for women is possible. But they also tell us that, until violence against women and the threat of violence against women is no more, women throughout the world still lives in oppressive structures surprisingly similar to those experienced by biblical women like Susanna.

Image: Susanna and the Elders, by Artemisia Gentileschi. While many artists’ depictions of Susanna and the Elder in the Baroque era depicted Susanna for an objectifying gaze aimed at igniting male desire, Gentileschi depicts Susanna empathetically, capturing the sense of Susanna’s distress. Horrifically, Gentileschi was also later forced to carry the burden of proof for a sexual crime of which she was a victim and in which the legal system was biased against her, being tortured in order to ‘verify’ her testimony against the man who raped her. Through her empathetic depiction of Susanna, Gentileschi is an ally to women who are victims of violence, depicting the emotional turmoil to which it gives rise. Artemisia Gentileschi, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

[1] The story of Susanna is ‘deuterocanonical’ or ‘apocryphal’: it appears in the Catholic and Orthodox canon of the Bible but not in the Hebrew or Protestant one. You can read the text here: Daniel, CHAPTER 13 | USCCB

[2] See Numbers 5 for an earlier biblical example of women being publicaly displayed and humiliated in a legal context

[3] Woman’s deepfake betrayal by friend: ‘Every moment became porn’ – BBC News Accessed 9^th February 2025, 16:35 GMT

[4] Woman’s deepfake betrayal by friend: ‘Every moment became porn’ – BBC News Accessed 9^th February 2025, 16:35 GMT

Reflection on Heartwood / Northwestern Symposium on Sexual Violence in Buddhism: Centering Survivors Voices

by Chris Greenough on November 4, 2024

Symposium at Northwestern University Addresses Sexual Violence in Buddhism

By Ann Gleig, Amy Langenberg, and Sarah Jacoby

October 25, 2024 was one of the most meaningful days of our academic careers. Along with Nancy Floy (founder of the Heartwood Center, Evanston IL), we co-organized a survivor-centered conference on sexual abuse in Buddhism at Northwestern University. From the opening presentation on the abuse of nuns in Bhutan and Malaysia, a presentation on the abuse of child monks in Sri Lanka, and a roundtable discussion by survivors of abuse in North American contexts, it is clear that sexual abuse cuts across Buddhist lineages and cultural contexts and is a problem that multiple parties need to tackle together. The diversity and unity of the presenters and audience — over seventy survivors, monastics, journalists, lawyers and academics– was profound and impactful. Throughout the planning process, we were concerned to safeguard the space. On the day itself, all in attendance in the packed conference room listened attentively, commented respectfully, and responded with compassion.

Buddhist abuse has devastating consequences for its victims, often with collateral damage to its communities. Yet, Buddhist Studies has failed to acknowledge it as a structural problem, an aspect of Buddhist history, institutions, and even doctrines, and one that is deserving of scholarly attention. We feel this is an ethical as well as intellectual failure in our field and are committed to changing it through survivor-centered scholarship and pedagogy. The symposium, a hybrid event including scholarship, advocacy, and survivor testimony, was the public facing element of a three-day conference with two survivor-only days focused on healing and connection that took place at the Heartwood Center, under the auspices of the Heartwood Connecting Survivors of Teacher and Guru Abuse program.

Three things are particularly significant about the symposium:

As far as we know, it was the first academic conference in the history of Buddhist Studies to focus on sexual violence.
It took a survivor-centered approach. We worked closely with survivors throughout the planning process of this event from the grant application, which includes funding for two years of therapy, to inviting survivors to attend and to present at the conference.
It centered global representation and was sensitive to the colonial and postcolonial conditions that affect many Buddhist institutions and require us to acknowledge and simultaneously address multiple forms of violence—sexual gender, racial, and ethnocentric.

After a brief welcome and introduction to the event presented by Nancy Floy of Heartwood and Sarah Jacoby of Northwestern, the symposium began with a groundbreaking lecture by two Buddhist nuns, Choela Tenzin Dadon, originally from Bhutan, and Choela Karma Chodron, originally from Malaysia. Their joint presentation titled “Sacred Spaces, Silent Suffering: Sexual Abuse in Tibetan Buddhist Contexts” courageously addressed problems pervasive in Vajrayāna Buddhist nunneries caused by monks in respected teaching roles in nunneries taking advantage of their nun disciples, in some cases by claiming that what is actually sexual misconduct is a catalyst for advanced spiritual attainment. The Choelas’ presentation did not shy away from listing the many instances of such abuse they have encountered, thereby accentuating the severity of the problem.

The next lecture was presented by Somtsobum, doctoral student in Buddhist Studies at Northwestern University, who is from Tibet. Somtsobum’s lecture was titled “The Demoness who Embodies Wisdom: Gender, Violence, and Justice in Tibetan Short Stories.” Beginning with an ancient story of Queen Tsepongza, Somtsobum traced a series of Tibetan literary representations of women as demonesses, likening them to witches. After analyzing the ways in which these old stories illustrate what feminist philosopher Kate Manne refers to as “himpathy,” she concluded her talk with an analysis of several contemporary Tibetan women writers who are retelling women’s stories as complex agents endowed with their own strong sense of karmic justice.

The morning concluded with a powerful and personal account of coming forward as a survivor of sexual abuse presented by Willa Blythe Baker of Natural Dharma Fellowship in Boston and its retreat center Wonderwell Mountain Refuge in New Hampshire. Lama Willa’s talk was titled “Coming Forward: The Treacherous and Empowering Path of Breaking Silence.” Even though Baker’s talk was the only one presented over Zoom, she “read the room” as if she were sitting right in it, connecting with survivors and allies in the room through a vivid account of the terror and profundity of returning to the community in which she was abused accompanied by an envelope filled with testimonies from women who had also been sexually abused after being ordained as nuns.

After lunch came a survivors’ roundtable called “Centering Survivors’ Voices,” featuring survivors Catherine Pilfrey, Nancy Floy, Rachel Montgomery, Caroline DeVane, and Linda Modaro. The conversation was moderated by Rachel Bernstein, a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and Cult Specialist. They took turns responding to a series of targeted questions, including these: “How would you describe how others have responded to your experience? Is the guru-student relationship inherently flawed? When it comes to improving the safety and health in Buddhist communities, who is responsible? Since your experience, how has your Buddhist practice changed? What have been the lasting impacts of the harm you experienced – physically, emotionally, mentally, relationally, and socially? In your experience as a survivor, what or who has been your greatest source of support? The survivors’ varied and heartfelt responses to these questions left no one in the audience unmoved, proving the deep and long-term impacts of sexual abuse in Buddhist contexts. Coming from different Buddhist lineages—Theravada, Zen, and Vajrayana–demonstrating that sexual violence is not a problem specific to just one bad apple Buddhist guru or even to one bad apple Buddhist lineage.

Psychotherapist and former monastic from Sri Lanka Chandana Namal Rathnayake is the first scholar ever to produce sustained attention on child abuse in Buddhist monasteries. Based on his compelling 2023 doctoral dissertation from Canterbury Christ Church University titled “Breaking the Silence about Institutional Child Abuse in the Buddhist Monastery in Sri Lanka,” Rathnayake’s lecture titled “Buddhism and Sexual Abuse: A Burden on Sri Lankan Buddhist Children” exposed the magnitude of the problem of the sexual abuse of young boys perpetrated by teachers and elder monks in Buddhist monasteries. His research is based on sociological methods as well as his own experience growing up as a child monastic in Sri Lanka, where he estimates more than 50% of children in monasteries have been sexually abused. Rathnayake’s scholarship on this topic is as courageous as it is tragic and demands further research and institutional reform.

Dr. Chandana Namal Rathnayake. Photo by Sarah Jacoby

The next lecture was delivered by Carol Merchasin, an attorney at McAllister Olivarius who is well known for her legal work on cases involving sexual misconduct in religious, faith-based, and spiritual communities. In the United States, she is the most prominent lawyer supporting survivors of sexual abuse in Buddhist communities. Her talk was titled, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Can the Legal System Offer Justice to Survivors of Sexual Abuse in Spiritual Communities?” Carol’s dynamic and expressive talk first unveiled the “ugly” aspects of bringing a case through the U.S. legal system, including how slow the process is and the challenges of communicating with judges who lack knowledge about how long it takes for many survivors to come forward with their stories. She outlined the process of taking a case through the civil court system, as well as described the benefits survivors can experience through taking their case to the court system. She didn’t shy away from critiquing aspects of the current system in the U.S., focusing in particular on the challenges of non-disclosure agreements.

The final event of the day was a roundtable discussion called “What Can Buddhist Studies Offer Survivors?” This panel featured five Buddhist Studies scholars including Kali Cape, Damchö Diana Finnegan, Ann Gleig, Sarah Jacoby, and Amy Langenberg, and was moderated by Darcie Price-Wallace. Scholars on this panel responded to a series of questions including “What barriers and challenges have prevented Buddhist Studies from supporting survivor-centered scholarship? What would survivor-centered research in Buddhist Studies look like? What might we learn about Buddhism that current approaches obscure? What is the relationship between scholarship and advocacy? The panel of scholars expressed the need for a more robust Buddhist Studies methodology that makes room for instead of marginalizing the question of abuse. They were united on the need to incorporate the topic of abuse into the introductory Buddhist Studies classroom in order to safeguard young students from abuse and normalize the topic in Buddhist Studies at the grassroots level.

The feedback we have received as co-organizers has been gratifying. Survivors reported feeling that their voices had been heard by scholars for the first time and academics shared that the event has inspired them to tackle abuse in their scholarship and pedagogy.Moving forward we hope to inspire further academic and survivor collaborations across cultural contexts.

For further coverage of the conference see:

Justin Whitaker, “Symposium at Northwestern University Addresses Sexual Violence in Buddhism,” Buddhistdoor Global, October 31, 2024

Mariana Restrepo, “The Heartwood-Northwestern Symposium: A Groundbreaking Symposium Centering Survivors of Sexual Violence in Buddhism,” Lion’s Roar: Buddhist Wisdom for Our Time

About the authors

Ann Gleig is Associate Professor of Religion and Cultural Studies at the University of Central Florida.

Amy Langenberg is Professor of Religious Studies at Eckerd College.

Sarah Jacoby is Professor of Religious Studies at Northwestern University.

Amy and Ann are co-authors on a book-length study of abuse in North American and Transnational Buddhist convert communities, under contract with Yale University Press. Sarah is a specialist in Tibetan Buddhism with a focus on gender, sexuality, and religious auto/biography. She is author of “She Said No: Toward a Survivor-Centered History of Vajrayāna Buddhist Sexuality,” which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. All three have worked together on bringing attention to the issue of sexual abuse in the field of Buddhist Studies.