Our Methodology & Editorial Standards

✓ We DO Analyze:

• Quotes attributed to spiritual teachers
• Claims about what traditions teach
• Historical assertions about religious figures
• Doctrinal claims ("Buddhism teaches X")
• Practice claims ("This tradition forbids Y")
• Scientific claims about meditation/prayer

✗ We DO NOT Analyze:

• Political claims (outside our scope)
• Commercial marketing (not our domain)
• Personal opinions presented as facts
• Pure theology disputes (when genuine disagreement exists)

Primary Religious Texts

Direct examination of original texts (or best translations available). We note which translation we use and acknowledge translation controversies where they exist.

Peer-Reviewed Scholarship

Academic research in religious studies, history, theology, and philosophy. We prioritize scholarly consensus but acknowledge areas of disagreement.

Expert Consensus

What specialists in each tradition say. When experts disagree, we note the disagreement rather than declaring one side true.

Current Practice Documentation

How traditions are actually practiced today, verified through multiple sources and community reports.

TRUE

Claim is supported by primary texts AND peer-reviewed scholarship AND expert consensus. The evidence is clear and unambiguous.

PARTIALLY TRUE

Claim has support in sources but lacks important context, qualifications, or nuance. The claim is not wrong but incomplete.

MISLEADING

Claim contains true elements but is presented in a way that leads to a false conclusion. The problem is context or emphasis, not the statement itself.

FALSE

Claim is contradicted by primary texts AND/OR scholarly consensus. The evidence clearly shows the claim is inaccurate.

MISATTRIBUTED

Claim is attributed to the wrong source, person, or text. The attribution is incorrect even if the claim itself might be true.

Step 1: Clarify the Claim

We state exactly what is being claimed. If a quote, we note the exact wording and alleged source.

Step 2: Identify Context

We understand the historical, cultural, and theological context in which the claim appears or where it's attributed.

Step 3: Search Primary Sources

We examine original texts directly, checking translations and noting disputed passages.

Step 4: Review Scholarship

We examine peer-reviewed research and note where scholars agree and disagree.

Step 5: Peer Review

Our analysis is reviewed by an expert from a DIFFERENT tradition than the one being analyzed (to reduce bias).

Step 6: Assign Verdict

Based on all evidence, we assign a verdict and document our reasoning with citations.

Step 7: Publish with Sources

We publish the analysis with full citations and links to primary sources so readers can verify our work.

When Scholars Disagree

We explain the disagreement and note which scholars hold which positions. We might assign PARTIALLY TRUE rather than declaring one side the truth.

When Evidence is Unclear

We mark claims as UNVERIFIABLE rather than guessing. We explain why clear verification is impossible.

When Traditions Interpret Differently

We note that different schools within a tradition may interpret texts differently. A claim TRUE in one school might be FALSE in another.

Correction Timeframe: Errors are corrected within 48 hours of discovery

Transparency: All corrections are noted prominently with date and reason

Archive: Previous versions are archived and linked so readers can see what was changed

Version History: Full change log shows who made changes and when

Analyst Affiliation Disclosure: All analysts disclose their religious/spiritual affiliations

Cross-Tradition Review: Analyses are peer-reviewed by experts from OTHER traditions

Funding Transparency: All funding sources are disclosed and listed publicly

No Religious Organization Funding: We do not accept funding from religious organizations to maintain independence

No Advertising: We do not accept advertising that could influence our verdicts