What do you think?
Rate this book
Buying Buddha, Selling Rumi: Orientalism and the Mystical Marketplace
From jewellery to meditation pillows to tourist retreats, religious traditions – especially those of the East – are being commodified as never before. Imitated and rebranded as ‘New Age’ or ‘spiritual’, they are marketed to secular Westerners as an answer to suffering in the modern world, the ‘mystical’ and ‘exotic’ East promising a path to enlightenment and inner peace.
In Buying Buddha, Selling Rumi , Sophia Rose Arjana examines the appropriation and sale of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam in the West today, the role of mysticism and Orientalism in the religious marketplace, and how the commodification of religion impacts people’s lives.
In Buying Buddha, Selling Rumi , Sophia Rose Arjana examines the appropriation and sale of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam in the West today, the role of mysticism and Orientalism in the religious marketplace, and how the commodification of religion impacts people’s lives.
322 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 4, 2020
22 people are currently reading
512 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 3, 2023
I was excited to read this book as the commodification and consumerism of religious traditions is a timely and interesting subject. However, I think Arjana's book has not done this topic adequate justice.
As others have said, this book suffers from disorganization and repetition. The same examples of cultural appropriation – the retail website Goop, white immigrants to Bali, the fetishization of Tibet, the book "Eat, Pray Love,”, Oprah, several spiritual festivals – are cited continuously throughout the book. One page of the book may deal with five to seven topics from multiple religions. Sentences and paragraphs feel like they have no connection to the sentence or paragraph that came before them. Arjana cites excessive examples of "cultural colonialism" throughout the book with little to no analysis. Despite the book's cover and title indicating it is about religion, it includes discussion of non-religious cultural colonialism like interior decorating in restaurants and belly-dancing. It also includes some examples of cultural appropriation of non-Asian cultures such as African-American, African, Native American, and Ashkenazi Jewish. The book would benefit from more organization and fewer, more generalized, more focused examples with deeper analysis. The only deep analysis provided is in the final chapters. These are much more engaging and readable than previous chapters, but confusing if you have never seen Lost or Star Wars.
She continually quotes various academics who are usually thrown in with no introduction to who they are, what their work is, or how it is relevant. The quotes are typically not analyzed. The reading experience is, therefore, cumbersome and disjointed as the voice is constantly changing. The reader is expected to be intimately familiar with numerous cultures and religious traditions as well as critical theory, critical race theory, sociology, critiques of capitalism, and American pop culture. At times, I found myself having to look up what book a particular author wrote, what a "heterotopia" is (not a mythical land of straight people), or what the film "Crazy Rich Asians" is about. She introduces and uses terminology without defining nor explaining it. For example, referring to "Eat, Pray, Love as "priv-lit" which I did not realize until significantly into the book is a word-play on privilege and a prior existing critique of this book after googling this word.
As the book stands, the author does not include discussion of examples that would enhance her argument. She talks about the "performance" of Islam by white scholar Hamza Yusuf but omits Abdal Hakim Murad. She completely omits writing about Romani people. However, she repeatedly talks about the Bohemian fashion style derived from the French term for Romani people, Bohémien, but never included this information.
Surprisingly, she doesn't talk about the biggest propagator of Fake Hafez, Daniel Ladinsky. She includes some discussion of racial fetishization in skincare but altogether forgoes discussing the new Western obsession with Asian skincare with its apparent exotic ingredients that keep Asian women perpetually youthful. I think about the brand Tatcha started by a Taiwanese-American woman but is marketed as the secret beauty recipes of Japanese geishas, fake Korean beauty brands, and the brand "Rituals of Karma" selling beauty products off of Hindu theology. She misses this entire trend of Asian skincare, which would be a rich well to draw from in criticism of orientalism mixed with capitalism.
One of the book's most bizarre aspects is that the author will sporadically point out if a group of people or a particular person are white (ex. Coleman Barks) and then implicitly or explicitly attribute their behavior to being white. Yet she mentions people of color (ex. Deepak Chopra) doing the same thing and never mentions their race and provides no analysis. She analyses these people as if they are white. How can we attribute this behavior to someone being white then and not the general trends of consumerism and capitalism in modernity? Some of the non-white people she brings up (ex. Osho) did far worse things than other whites mentioned, but ideas of non-white spiritual authenticity and inherent white inauthenticity (ex. her discourse on Hamza Yusuf), which Arjana implicitly promotes the entire book, can lead to extreme harm and abuse by capitalizing charlatans. In my view, this is a source of tension and dissonance.
Arjana seems to position herself as uniquely self-aware and enlightened above her many subjects of criticism – white conservative Muslim converts, pseudo-Sufis, perennialists, yoga practitioners, American Buddhists, ex-pats in Asia, Oprah, etc. She shifts from viewing the subjects with sympathy to contempt and disdain. I question why Arjana, self-professedly white, positions herself as a voice speaking on behalf of billions of people. At one point, she quotes a scholar who notes how mixed-race Peruvians will follow indigenous traditions, but on what basis can Arjana criticize and dictate the religious practice or racial identity of Peruvians as a white American woman? She is as subject to the forces of modernity and capitalism as her subjects are, but she seems to broadly disagree with every practice of Eastern religion by Westerners asides from liberal academic versions, which go uncontested. Arjana unintentionally promotes a monolithic view of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. There is the true, traditional, authentic Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam and the false, bastardized modern versions in conflict with them. Only brief lip service is provided to mention of sects or diversity.
I think Arjana is excessively critical of what I would see as cultural exchange and what she calls "cultural colonialism." I believe aspects of cultural exchange are simply inevitable in a globalized world. I am particularly concerned with condemnations of Buddhist-inspired psychotherapy as I don't see an alternative, nor is this a racist or superfluous appropriation. For example, dialectical behavioral therapy is Buddhism-inspired and the primary treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder. I'm not comfortable with the massive generalizations made about certain groups on very little information, such as her anecdote about how she knew someone who went to a Nur Ashki dhikr and saw someone fall asleep. I think we should differentiate between offensive and harmful appropriations versus those that are positive or benign. She sort of touches on this in her positive analysis of Lost and Star Wars, but if those are an “okay” form of cultural appropriation, then I don’t see why at least some of the myriad other things she lists aren’t then.
The title and cover are very misleading to the actual contents of the book. Rumi is discussed only briefly and on a surface level. I feel she should have discussed the construction of the modern American Buddhist movement. This book is entirely unapproachable to those who don't have an academic background in religious studies and related fields. It's also excessively broad and simply trying to cover too many religions with too many topics at once, leading to a lacking analysis. The book ends abruptly, and the conclusion is insufficient.
Ultimately, the author had a very different vision of what her book is then I imagined it, but overall it suffers from flawed analysis, disorganization, inconsistency, too much quoting, and too many examples covered. It feels like there is no conclusion and no direction to go from here.
As others have said, this book suffers from disorganization and repetition. The same examples of cultural appropriation – the retail website Goop, white immigrants to Bali, the fetishization of Tibet, the book "Eat, Pray Love,”, Oprah, several spiritual festivals – are cited continuously throughout the book. One page of the book may deal with five to seven topics from multiple religions. Sentences and paragraphs feel like they have no connection to the sentence or paragraph that came before them. Arjana cites excessive examples of "cultural colonialism" throughout the book with little to no analysis. Despite the book's cover and title indicating it is about religion, it includes discussion of non-religious cultural colonialism like interior decorating in restaurants and belly-dancing. It also includes some examples of cultural appropriation of non-Asian cultures such as African-American, African, Native American, and Ashkenazi Jewish. The book would benefit from more organization and fewer, more generalized, more focused examples with deeper analysis. The only deep analysis provided is in the final chapters. These are much more engaging and readable than previous chapters, but confusing if you have never seen Lost or Star Wars.
She continually quotes various academics who are usually thrown in with no introduction to who they are, what their work is, or how it is relevant. The quotes are typically not analyzed. The reading experience is, therefore, cumbersome and disjointed as the voice is constantly changing. The reader is expected to be intimately familiar with numerous cultures and religious traditions as well as critical theory, critical race theory, sociology, critiques of capitalism, and American pop culture. At times, I found myself having to look up what book a particular author wrote, what a "heterotopia" is (not a mythical land of straight people), or what the film "Crazy Rich Asians" is about. She introduces and uses terminology without defining nor explaining it. For example, referring to "Eat, Pray, Love as "priv-lit" which I did not realize until significantly into the book is a word-play on privilege and a prior existing critique of this book after googling this word.
As the book stands, the author does not include discussion of examples that would enhance her argument. She talks about the "performance" of Islam by white scholar Hamza Yusuf but omits Abdal Hakim Murad. She completely omits writing about Romani people. However, she repeatedly talks about the Bohemian fashion style derived from the French term for Romani people, Bohémien, but never included this information.
Surprisingly, she doesn't talk about the biggest propagator of Fake Hafez, Daniel Ladinsky. She includes some discussion of racial fetishization in skincare but altogether forgoes discussing the new Western obsession with Asian skincare with its apparent exotic ingredients that keep Asian women perpetually youthful. I think about the brand Tatcha started by a Taiwanese-American woman but is marketed as the secret beauty recipes of Japanese geishas, fake Korean beauty brands, and the brand "Rituals of Karma" selling beauty products off of Hindu theology. She misses this entire trend of Asian skincare, which would be a rich well to draw from in criticism of orientalism mixed with capitalism.
One of the book's most bizarre aspects is that the author will sporadically point out if a group of people or a particular person are white (ex. Coleman Barks) and then implicitly or explicitly attribute their behavior to being white. Yet she mentions people of color (ex. Deepak Chopra) doing the same thing and never mentions their race and provides no analysis. She analyses these people as if they are white. How can we attribute this behavior to someone being white then and not the general trends of consumerism and capitalism in modernity? Some of the non-white people she brings up (ex. Osho) did far worse things than other whites mentioned, but ideas of non-white spiritual authenticity and inherent white inauthenticity (ex. her discourse on Hamza Yusuf), which Arjana implicitly promotes the entire book, can lead to extreme harm and abuse by capitalizing charlatans. In my view, this is a source of tension and dissonance.
Arjana seems to position herself as uniquely self-aware and enlightened above her many subjects of criticism – white conservative Muslim converts, pseudo-Sufis, perennialists, yoga practitioners, American Buddhists, ex-pats in Asia, Oprah, etc. She shifts from viewing the subjects with sympathy to contempt and disdain. I question why Arjana, self-professedly white, positions herself as a voice speaking on behalf of billions of people. At one point, she quotes a scholar who notes how mixed-race Peruvians will follow indigenous traditions, but on what basis can Arjana criticize and dictate the religious practice or racial identity of Peruvians as a white American woman? She is as subject to the forces of modernity and capitalism as her subjects are, but she seems to broadly disagree with every practice of Eastern religion by Westerners asides from liberal academic versions, which go uncontested. Arjana unintentionally promotes a monolithic view of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. There is the true, traditional, authentic Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam and the false, bastardized modern versions in conflict with them. Only brief lip service is provided to mention of sects or diversity.
I think Arjana is excessively critical of what I would see as cultural exchange and what she calls "cultural colonialism." I believe aspects of cultural exchange are simply inevitable in a globalized world. I am particularly concerned with condemnations of Buddhist-inspired psychotherapy as I don't see an alternative, nor is this a racist or superfluous appropriation. For example, dialectical behavioral therapy is Buddhism-inspired and the primary treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder. I'm not comfortable with the massive generalizations made about certain groups on very little information, such as her anecdote about how she knew someone who went to a Nur Ashki dhikr and saw someone fall asleep. I think we should differentiate between offensive and harmful appropriations versus those that are positive or benign. She sort of touches on this in her positive analysis of Lost and Star Wars, but if those are an “okay” form of cultural appropriation, then I don’t see why at least some of the myriad other things she lists aren’t then.
The title and cover are very misleading to the actual contents of the book. Rumi is discussed only briefly and on a surface level. I feel she should have discussed the construction of the modern American Buddhist movement. This book is entirely unapproachable to those who don't have an academic background in religious studies and related fields. It's also excessively broad and simply trying to cover too many religions with too many topics at once, leading to a lacking analysis. The book ends abruptly, and the conclusion is insufficient.
Ultimately, the author had a very different vision of what her book is then I imagined it, but overall it suffers from flawed analysis, disorganization, inconsistency, too much quoting, and too many examples covered. It feels like there is no conclusion and no direction to go from here.
October 5, 2020
This is an excellent book to explore the commodification of "the wisdom of the East" from Buddhism to Sufism. The writer uses the concept of "muddled orientalism" to capture the process of making a hot-pot of non-Western religions, practices and concepts. Yet, the book suffers from repetition, and it also makes a lot of effort to fit things into its narrative, sometimes too much.
To begin with, the main idea is that the Western consumers of mysticism distort religions and beliefs originating from the East. The problem is fixation to this idea ignores the fact that throughout history, all these beliefs and practices have been continuously evolving. Therefore, the current process can be considered as a part of ongoing evolution.
The author almost accuses new-age cults of being "fake" or "not real", as if "traditional" cults have the key for eternal truth. What makes a new age group less real than a traditional cult group? The author exposes the problems, such as sexual misconducts and charlatanry, of the modern cults, but ignores the fact that these problems are also widespread in traditional ones.
The problem of repetition is probably also related to the problems of academic writing. It is expected to develop a concept and revolve around this concept throughout the book, like an upward spiral. However, this also makes books hard to read and a bit dull.
I feel like I have mistreated this book because I really liked it. So, I do not want you to think that this is not a good book. I enjoyed it, and I think you should definitely read it, especially if you are into any kinds of spiritualism.
To begin with, the main idea is that the Western consumers of mysticism distort religions and beliefs originating from the East. The problem is fixation to this idea ignores the fact that throughout history, all these beliefs and practices have been continuously evolving. Therefore, the current process can be considered as a part of ongoing evolution.
The author almost accuses new-age cults of being "fake" or "not real", as if "traditional" cults have the key for eternal truth. What makes a new age group less real than a traditional cult group? The author exposes the problems, such as sexual misconducts and charlatanry, of the modern cults, but ignores the fact that these problems are also widespread in traditional ones.
The problem of repetition is probably also related to the problems of academic writing. It is expected to develop a concept and revolve around this concept throughout the book, like an upward spiral. However, this also makes books hard to read and a bit dull.
I feel like I have mistreated this book because I really liked it. So, I do not want you to think that this is not a good book. I enjoyed it, and I think you should definitely read it, especially if you are into any kinds of spiritualism.
September 12, 2020
An overview of religion-as-mystical-product in the United States (and to a certain extent Western Europe). There’s a strange combination of repetitive notes (a particular poor translation of Rumi is mentioned so often that I wished I’d kept a running tally) alongside such a broad scope that we don’t get much depth into any single element. Still, overall it was an interesting read.
For a general audience, the repetitive bits mean it’s not as readable as the blurbs would suggest, but if I were looking for a textbook to assign excerpts to for a class on the subject, some of the chapters here would be perfect.
For a general audience, the repetitive bits mean it’s not as readable as the blurbs would suggest, but if I were looking for a textbook to assign excerpts to for a class on the subject, some of the chapters here would be perfect.
December 24, 2020
This book is a mess. It deals with a highly interesting subject matter -- the ways in which orientalism, commodification and disenchantment have come together in what Arjana calls a "mystical marketplace" -- and brings a lot of great material to the table, but approaches it in such a broad and chaotic way that I have come away from reading this without feeling like I learned much that was new to me at all. Arjana's writing style is extremely dry and for most of the book she eschews analysis in favour of endless namedropping, the cataloguing of various examples, and superfluous direct quotations of earlier scholars. Usually these examples and quotations are only very basically contextualised, and important theoretical conceptualisations are discussed exceedingly briefly. Deeper analysis is only present in the last three chapters (which redeem the book somewhat), but even then tends to be fairly superficial. The reader is expected to be broadly familiar with many aspects of various religions, mystical traditions, critical theories, as well as modern popular culture, as Arjana tends to provide very little in the way of context. For example, to fully appreciate the final chapter, the reader will need to have seen both Lost (about which major spoilers are given) and Star Wars. As someone else noted here, the book is also extremely repetitive, often signalling more extensive treatment of certain examples in other chapters. All of this gives me the impression that a different book structure in which examples are more exclusively relegated to certain chapters where they are then dealt with more deeply would've been much more satisfying. As noted, the last three chapters do a better job at this and could've served as a blueprint for a more tightly argued book.
Aside from bad writing and messy organisation, I felt the book's attitude towards much of what it describes is also somewhat problematic. The many new religious and mystical movements or practices discussed are contrasted with those parts of traditional religions they are derived or appropriated from. By doing so it sometimes seems like Arjana implies that only the latter can lay claim to authentic religious experience, while the former are too mixed up with (post)modernism and capitalism to have any real value. Arjana does seem to be aware of this tension and addresses it more directly in the very short postscript, but she never really provides a satisfying solution. Much as these new religious movements are dominated by charlatans and rampant with problematic appropriations, is it not important that we still try to understand their appeal and the meaning many people find in these practices? Again, Arjana is not insensitive to this question, but her book does not present much in the way of an answer.
I came across this book out of an interest in modern appropriations/bastardisations of Rumi via Coleman Barks and others and the witty title of this book seemed to suggest that it would provide some helpful context to understand it. As it turns out, this single article is still more informative and vastly better written than Arjana's whole book:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...
Aside from bad writing and messy organisation, I felt the book's attitude towards much of what it describes is also somewhat problematic. The many new religious and mystical movements or practices discussed are contrasted with those parts of traditional religions they are derived or appropriated from. By doing so it sometimes seems like Arjana implies that only the latter can lay claim to authentic religious experience, while the former are too mixed up with (post)modernism and capitalism to have any real value. Arjana does seem to be aware of this tension and addresses it more directly in the very short postscript, but she never really provides a satisfying solution. Much as these new religious movements are dominated by charlatans and rampant with problematic appropriations, is it not important that we still try to understand their appeal and the meaning many people find in these practices? Again, Arjana is not insensitive to this question, but her book does not present much in the way of an answer.
I came across this book out of an interest in modern appropriations/bastardisations of Rumi via Coleman Barks and others and the witty title of this book seemed to suggest that it would provide some helpful context to understand it. As it turns out, this single article is still more informative and vastly better written than Arjana's whole book:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-...
May 2, 2022
Listened to the audiobook. (halfway through it) Probably would’ve been better reading it. It was very hard to follow. Maybe because of the way it was written, and my first language not being english. I got kind of fed up with the ‘white washing’, colonialism talk, the constant repetitions. I felt like I was listening to the same things over and over again, without her getting to the point. If you want to torture yourself a bit, this is the audiobook for you!
White, bored, privileged, western people ruin everything, just leave those religions alone.. You can never practice it authentically as a white, westerner, right. I get the impression she’s in favor of white people to stick to what they know, perhaps rediscover Christianity, and stop playing pretend.
I do agree with some of the things she mentions, but the thinking is just too rigid.
There are always going to be people, businesses out there looking for ways to make money. It’s not something anyone can stop. Does she want regulations regarding these things?
Maybe I missed her talking about it, but I think the poorer countries probably also benefit in some ways from the mystical tourism and perhaps in part helped to create it, or to sustain it. There are always two sides to a story.
It does make me question about authenticity..
Do westerners, generally have such a different perspective on life, a different spiritual, psychological make up, that prohibits them from understanding and truly practicing eastern religions. Is there always some performing, projection going on with it. Do people coming from those cultures, practicing religions they grew up with understand fully what it’s all about. Aren’t we all creatures of habit, imitating each other.
Maybe it gets mentioned later on, but practices such as yoga, kriya yoga, zen.. were brought to the west and popularized by teachers, like Iyengar, Paramahansa Yogananada etc. Perhaps they wanted to make money as well, who knows maybe they knew exactly how gullible westerners could be. But I don’t believe they were white washing their tradition, and these teachers honestly believed it would be of benefit to everyone.
It sometimes make me sad that people seem to forget the origins of these practices. But then again if it makes them happy, they’re not harming anyone and they’re working towards bettering themselves in some way, how bad can it be? Bring out the yoga mats. 😌
The serious seeker, westerner or not will always look beyond the surface, and cherish, respect, add to certain traditions. Religion has never been static, confined to one area, culture. In the end I don’t think you can really remove anything from it.
White, bored, privileged, western people ruin everything, just leave those religions alone.. You can never practice it authentically as a white, westerner, right. I get the impression she’s in favor of white people to stick to what they know, perhaps rediscover Christianity, and stop playing pretend.
I do agree with some of the things she mentions, but the thinking is just too rigid.
There are always going to be people, businesses out there looking for ways to make money. It’s not something anyone can stop. Does she want regulations regarding these things?
Maybe I missed her talking about it, but I think the poorer countries probably also benefit in some ways from the mystical tourism and perhaps in part helped to create it, or to sustain it. There are always two sides to a story.
It does make me question about authenticity..
Do westerners, generally have such a different perspective on life, a different spiritual, psychological make up, that prohibits them from understanding and truly practicing eastern religions. Is there always some performing, projection going on with it. Do people coming from those cultures, practicing religions they grew up with understand fully what it’s all about. Aren’t we all creatures of habit, imitating each other.
Maybe it gets mentioned later on, but practices such as yoga, kriya yoga, zen.. were brought to the west and popularized by teachers, like Iyengar, Paramahansa Yogananada etc. Perhaps they wanted to make money as well, who knows maybe they knew exactly how gullible westerners could be. But I don’t believe they were white washing their tradition, and these teachers honestly believed it would be of benefit to everyone.
It sometimes make me sad that people seem to forget the origins of these practices. But then again if it makes them happy, they’re not harming anyone and they’re working towards bettering themselves in some way, how bad can it be? Bring out the yoga mats. 😌
The serious seeker, westerner or not will always look beyond the surface, and cherish, respect, add to certain traditions. Religion has never been static, confined to one area, culture. In the end I don’t think you can really remove anything from it.
September 4, 2021
This book had a lot of potential but sadly lived up to none of it. It was incredibly sloppy, lacked knowledge of the religious traditions it was examining and most irritatingly, despite claims otherwise, repeatedly treated Asian religious traditions as unchanging and unaffected by interactions with the publics around them. While it seems to be written for poplar audiences, the constant theoretical citations make me wonder who exactly is the intended audience for this text. In the end, I just couldn’t “buy” into any of the arguments put forth in this book and ended the book annoyed at the time I lost on reading it.
October 16, 2024
Dnfing but I read a lot before I called it off so I’m counting it!
I see why this book is valuable and necessary. The commodification of eastern cultures and religious that make people in the west a lot of money is gross and so common. We need to call it out. But we do not need to repeat the same things over and over and over again and call it a book. We also do not need to sounds quite so self-satisfied while we do it. It just wasn’t for me.
I see why this book is valuable and necessary. The commodification of eastern cultures and religious that make people in the west a lot of money is gross and so common. We need to call it out. But we do not need to repeat the same things over and over and over again and call it a book. We also do not need to sounds quite so self-satisfied while we do it. It just wasn’t for me.
July 13, 2024
Most of this book I have been teaching in a variety of ways in a number of my Sociology courses. It is nice to have that validation. The last chapter on Orientalism and popular culture is a perfect intersection of my research interests.
November 7, 2021
It's impossible to not be outraged by this book. It invokes white guilt over the cherished practice of yoga and all our favorite movies among other things.
I like how the book calls out religious freeloaders sampling the buffet of world religions, skimming the surface and leaving the substance. I hate how the book skims the surface of popular world views and leaves the substance, and the implication that pure religions exist needs a whole chapter.
I like how the book calls out religious freeloaders sampling the buffet of world religions, skimming the surface and leaving the substance. I hate how the book skims the surface of popular world views and leaves the substance, and the implication that pure religions exist needs a whole chapter.
December 1, 2025
Every once in a while, I delve into trash entertainment to ensure I appreciate the full range of the modern human experience. So I watched the Showtime series Polyamory, which is a dumpster fire. If your poly friends are really into game night or have actual open communication with their partners, you'll be unprepared for how toxic this show is.
I did a deep dive, and it appears a few cast members are in a cult that claims to help members process trauma through "tantra" and other "Eastern thought" -- which is code for rigorous, pretentious, technically consensual sex. I grew up surrounded by New Age nonsense, read Said in college, and have more recently noticed how many Western "life coaches" mistranslate "Eastern thought" to push their products -- usually for the glory of capitalism.
I thought this book would offer an in-depth historical, anthropological, financial, and psychological analysis of these trends. Unfortunately, this uneven diatribe could have been a Mad Lib. TLDR: "since at least the 19th century, white people (do something), which is a watered-down version of (this religion), which is bad, because religion is good and spirituality is bad."
I think she has a valid point about capitalistic appropriation, but her examples extend far past religious iconography. In her mind, people in the West cannot enjoy anything originating in the East without participating in appropriation or fetishization. You can't watch anime without having a waifu. You can't buy Korean beauty products without ... ugh, let's not dignify that one.
I agree that New Age charlatans are making money off the depressed masses is bad. But the author doesn't satisfactorily answer the question of why it's fine for religions to make money but bad for "spirituality" to do the same.
Religions have amassed their wealth through allying with warmongers, dominating trade, or mandating donations from practitioners. Spirituality, on the other hand, encourages people to ... wear paisley and buy yoga mats.
"Spiritualism" may dilute and appropriate rituals, but most religions have been adapted and readapted to the point that they bear little similarity to their original form. They are generally defined by the works of MANY, not just a progenitor and his (it's always his) original followers. There is very little consistency between how different sects interpret the same source material.
If religions are themselves amalgamations, why does it matter that New Age spiritualism is as well? I'm guessing that it comes down to her claim that Westernized "Eastern" rituals remove any mention of god(s). Some might believe in a "source," or "divine masculine and divine feminine," but with very little in the way of personification and mythology.
"Because it doesn't come from the personified deity region of belief, spirituality is bad because it is sparkling secularism."
I'm annoyed because I wanted to see a bunch of New Age narcissists' empires exposed. Instead, I find myself defending the sorts of things that usually make me cringe.
I did a deep dive, and it appears a few cast members are in a cult that claims to help members process trauma through "tantra" and other "Eastern thought" -- which is code for rigorous, pretentious, technically consensual sex. I grew up surrounded by New Age nonsense, read Said in college, and have more recently noticed how many Western "life coaches" mistranslate "Eastern thought" to push their products -- usually for the glory of capitalism.
I thought this book would offer an in-depth historical, anthropological, financial, and psychological analysis of these trends. Unfortunately, this uneven diatribe could have been a Mad Lib. TLDR: "since at least the 19th century, white people (do something), which is a watered-down version of (this religion), which is bad, because religion is good and spirituality is bad."
I think she has a valid point about capitalistic appropriation, but her examples extend far past religious iconography. In her mind, people in the West cannot enjoy anything originating in the East without participating in appropriation or fetishization. You can't watch anime without having a waifu. You can't buy Korean beauty products without ... ugh, let's not dignify that one.
I agree that New Age charlatans are making money off the depressed masses is bad. But the author doesn't satisfactorily answer the question of why it's fine for religions to make money but bad for "spirituality" to do the same.
Religions have amassed their wealth through allying with warmongers, dominating trade, or mandating donations from practitioners. Spirituality, on the other hand, encourages people to ... wear paisley and buy yoga mats.
"Spiritualism" may dilute and appropriate rituals, but most religions have been adapted and readapted to the point that they bear little similarity to their original form. They are generally defined by the works of MANY, not just a progenitor and his (it's always his) original followers. There is very little consistency between how different sects interpret the same source material.
If religions are themselves amalgamations, why does it matter that New Age spiritualism is as well? I'm guessing that it comes down to her claim that Westernized "Eastern" rituals remove any mention of god(s). Some might believe in a "source," or "divine masculine and divine feminine," but with very little in the way of personification and mythology.
"Because it doesn't come from the personified deity region of belief, spirituality is bad because it is sparkling secularism."
I'm annoyed because I wanted to see a bunch of New Age narcissists' empires exposed. Instead, I find myself defending the sorts of things that usually make me cringe.
January 17, 2026
I bought this book in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The topic is surely very interesting, but the book is not as good as I expected. For an academic book, it does not present any new or original material. It pushes a new term "Muddled Orientalism", that is kind of ok. Other than that, it is a salad bar of terminology from other researchers. On the other hand, for a non-academic book, it is too nerdy and not entertaining enough. The reader is not ready for such a barrage of terminology. Out of 300 pages, 50 are reserved for the foot notes and bibliography. That's the main issue with the book, it is neither academic nor non-academic. It wants to be both.
The author repeats herself many times, starts from Hinduism, goes to Buddhism, then Islam then Rumi and back to Hinduism, repeating the same material and statements many many times. In chapter one she tells us about chapter four and in chapter two tells us about chapter three. The writing is not flowing well. Since the author wants to talk about all religions we start wondering if she possesses a deeper knowledge of any of these topics at all.
When she talks about "North Americans" she means Canada and the US, forgetting that Mexicans are North Americans too. Maybe "Anglo-Americans" would be a better term?
At any rate, the book has plenty of names and terms that one can look up online while reading. That's what I did.
The author repeats herself many times, starts from Hinduism, goes to Buddhism, then Islam then Rumi and back to Hinduism, repeating the same material and statements many many times. In chapter one she tells us about chapter four and in chapter two tells us about chapter three. The writing is not flowing well. Since the author wants to talk about all religions we start wondering if she possesses a deeper knowledge of any of these topics at all.
When she talks about "North Americans" she means Canada and the US, forgetting that Mexicans are North Americans too. Maybe "Anglo-Americans" would be a better term?
At any rate, the book has plenty of names and terms that one can look up online while reading. That's what I did.
November 10, 2025
This book is a great start to a larger, incredibly nuanced and intricate conversation about Orientalism and the commodification of spiritual practices of the East in the materialistic Western, secular world. I enjoyed it, it was an easy read to follow along with that addressed lots of important issues, but at times it did feel surface level and repetitive. Nonetheless, I would still recommend this book to someone interested in these topics and/or just getting into the world of Religious Studies. It's not jargon-y or theory heavy, the writing is very accessible, and I appreciate Arjana's perspective. It definitely gives you something to think about, engaging with concepts such as cultural appropriation vs. appreciation, cultural colonialism, mystical tourism, New Age spirituality movements, and more.
January 18, 2024
Just finished this book. "Buying Buddha, Selling Rumi" is a captivating literary journey that seamlessly weaves together spirituality, commerce, and self-discovery. The author's insightful exploration of ancient wisdom and modern consumerism creates a thought-provoking narrative that resonates deeply. The book engages readers with its well-crafted prose, offering a unique perspective on the intersection of materialism and mindfulness. I thoroughly enjoyed the author's ability to balance profound philosophical insights with a compelling storytelling style. "Buying Buddha, Selling Rumi" is a must-read for those seeking a reflective and enriching experience, as it skillfully navigates the complexities of contemporary existence with grace and wisdom.
January 31, 2025
An excellent academic study of how Hindu and Buddhist religious elements have been exoticized and commodified for consumption by Western markets. There were so many elements I recognized in my own lived experience. I especially liked the chapters on specific places that have become marketplaces for such in the US, like Boulder, Sedona and Santa Fe, and the chapter on reflections of this commodification in US film and TV. As a big Lost fan, I loved how she dug into that show.
January 10, 2026
I learned a great deal about the cultural colonization of the East and how Eastern spiritualism became popular in the West, and the book also touches thoughtfully on cultural appropriation. However, I found it quite unorganised. It often overwhelms the reader with lots of information, which also feels repetitive and echoes points already made in earlier chapters.
February 5, 2022
A fairly well-written and researched book but the content could have been better. Many of the repetitive things. Those who want to understand interreligious relations, how spiritualism has been made a commodity in western culture can read this book.
October 14, 2021
a great topic and fine arguments throughout, but the writing/editing made the book feel redundant and distracted from those fine arguments
December 11, 2022
If there was a way to give 0 stars, I would do this
Read
June 30, 2023Expose of spiritual materialism and orientalist erasure of culture. Bonus analysis of Star Wars and Lost at the end. Admits that some level of mysticism may be necessary to cope with modernity.
June 12, 2025
I enjoyed the premise. Lots of conversational fodder for the yoga parties.
October 19, 2022
Really enjoyed this book, I think that it did a great job of tying orientalism with capitalism. I think the categorization of different examples could have been organized differently, but this book made me think about practices that are used and the line of orientalism between proper worship. It is interesting who uses this to advantage, and how it turned from religious to "mystical".
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews