Aubrey Marcus Melts Down
Austin-based "spiritual" influencer and podcaster—closely linked to Charles Eisenstein—has recently outraged and alienated many in his audience who, unlike us, took him seriously in the first place.
Tumultuous times breed spiritual charlatans.
As does the economics of the podcast / influencer game, in which the eye-catching, click-cashing, performance of spirituality can be a big business.
Aubrey Marcus is not someone I feel merits a lot of discussion. But, as Marcus apparently has some kind of audience, and wields some kind of influence, perhaps some kind of attention should be paid.
But since I can’t take this dude seriously enuff to waste too many precious breaths on this topic, you must forgive my forgoing much backstory. (You may need to google around to get the full scoop on Marcus and his recent antics, but we recommend moving on with your life.)
In brief, Aubrey Marcus is an Austin-based spiritual podcaster and entrepreneur. For a while he worked closely with Charles Eisenstein, who appeared several times on Marcus’s podcast and at his live events.
If Aubrey Marcus is a King—and he will tell you that he is—then Charles Eisenstein was the court philosopher.
I have mostly tried to avoid knowing much about Marcus, but when that effort was stymied, I felt impelled to post a critique of Marcus’s work, and his lazy appropriation of Thomas Berry’s signature term, the “New Story.”
WELL, IN JUST THESE PAST TWO WEEKS, AUBREY MARCUS HAD A BIT OF AN IMPLOSION…
… Stemming from the fact that he released a 2.5-hour podcast episode in which he claims that the goddess Isis instructed him to “open up his marriage” and start dating a much younger hottie.
Isis was also clear that Marcus should do a bunch of impregnating.
I don’t mean to sound flippant, but the reality is even more ludicrous, believe me.
When are Bigamy and Polyamory NOT Bigamy and Polyamory?
When They Can Be Branded and Marketed as Spiritualized “Radical Monogamy,” of Course!
In true contrarian “thought leader” fashion, Marcus is unwilling to admit that he’s just doing they same ol’ thing countless dudebros throughout history have done.
That’s not edgy enuff.
Not clickable enuff.
Not “shamanic” enuff.
No, Aubrey’s polyamory is much more sacred than that.
It is God-guided, in fact.
And though Marcus and his wife have, until recently, been selling high-end relationship workshops touting their “Divine Union,” now that they are part of a throuple, the whole crowd is being branded as “Radical Monogamy.”
Seriously.
To be clear, the issue is not the polyamory, but the posing, the pliable performance, the gaslighting, the deceptive term, “radical monogamy,” and the attempted spiritualization of bog-standard laddishness.
I can’t really take too seriously the people that used to take Marcus seriously, but you can look up some of the discourse, if interested.
And to tip this whole carnival from farce into tragedy, self-proclaimed spiritual teacher, Marc Gafni, also appears on the podcast for some reason. Now, Ganfi is another topic that life is too short to spend a lot of time on. So I won’t give his backstory, or the little I know of it, but, importantly, that backstory includes credible allegations of sexual assault.
And speaking of sexual assault, in this Facebook post from a few days ago (below), addressing the fallout and criticism he has recently received, Aubrey Marcus shouts-out a litany of people he admires, specifically because they have, like him, been “unfairly” maligned and attacked, or so he claims.
One of the names he lists is “Andrew.”
Did this mofo just give props to Andrew Tate!?!?
UPDATE: June 1, 2025:
Important Update!
As you can see, I ended this post with the outraged yet sincere question, “Did this mofo just give props to Andrew Tate!?!?”
It was an actual, not totally rhetorical, question, and I am glad to have it answered, it seems.
A commenter on Facebook has just now pointed out that Marcus’s use of “Andrew” in his post above most likely refers to Andrew Huberman.
I’m sure this is correct. So I withdraw my reference and any connection to Andrew Tate.
I will leave the original question up, for reference’s sake, and because I think it is a reasonable question to ask of one who publicly vague-posts a list of first-names-only that includes people credibly accused of sexual assault.
As always (of course!) if there are any factual errors or misleading implications that you see in any of my posts, feel free and encouraged to let me know.
I am always happy to correct factual errors and make any other corrections that I agree are warranted.
I think it is vital—especially now—that each of us feels accountable for what we write, post, put out, and share.
One reason I have been publishing these critiques is the basic lack of accountability, and standing-by-what-one-writes, that I’ve seen more and more in recent years.
That will never be me.
Let me know where I’ve gotten it wrong, and I’ll make corrections.
Writing matters.
Words matter.
Ideas matter.
Truth, honesty, facts, and accuracy—and even more importantly, a rock-solid commitment to truth, honesty, facts, and accuracy—this matters.
This is, and should be, a litmus test for leadership, sincerity, writing, and teaching in these fun-house-mirror times.
If your fav “thought leader”1 won’t be accountable for what they write and say, won’t listen to any feedback, and won’t make basic factual corrections, you might need a new thought leader.
lol. I’d probably be a touch wary of people who refer to themselves as “thought leaders.”
Similarly for those who refer to themselves as “philosophers.”
My professor and friend, Robert McDermott, says that the title “philosopher” is an honorific that is best left to others, rather than bestowed upon oneself.
I think Robert is right about that.
Notably, in the marketing copy for his new book of poetry, Aubrey Marcus refers to himself as “one of the world’s most renowned… modern philosophers.”
Not that I am a card-carrying member of any trad religion, preferring to seek wisdom that resonates deeply with my own experience in several traditions, but it seems to me that these kinds of 'dudes' are some of the worst frauds, anywhere. It saddens me that they have followers, especially that so many are women. We have, as a group, with many exceptions, been culturally programmed to follow, not lead. (As have many men, especially young men.) And, why would we follow a person who is so obviously self-serving and willing to exploit the need for others to be a part of a community. Jesus the teacher would have driven them out of the temple with a scourge. BTW, whatever happened to Charles Eisenstein. I listened to a lecture of his years ago, and he seemed low key, sincere, and as if he was speaking from a distinctly personal and non-BS kind of insight. Disappointing. And don't even get me started on Andrew Tate. OMG.