The Pillar Catholic portal publishes a column by Simcha Fisher dated July 3, 2026, in which she recounts her four-year practice of yoga, extols its physical benefits, and treats the question of its Hindu spiritual roots as a lighthearted debate suitable for paid subscribers. She jests about “showing fealty to false deities and demons” while wearing “revealing pants,” acknowledges the inherent meaning of bodily acts, yet frames the adoption of postures designed to worship Shiva as a matter of personal discernment rather than categorical prohibition. The article epitomizes the conciliar church’s capitulation to the world: a baptized Catholic publicly toys with demonic worship under the guise of “wellness,” and the neo-church’s media platform monetizes the scandal.
The Naturalistic Reduction of the Body to a Machine
The author reduces the human body — templum Spiritus Sancti (temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor 6:19) — to a biological mechanism requiring maintenance. She boasts: “It’s been great for my joints and my digestion, it builds muscle and helps me sleep, it’s brought my blood pressure back to normal.” This is the language of the gymnasium, not the sanctuary. She treats the body as an object of utility, not a subject of sanctification. St. Paul condemns this mentality: “For bodily exercise is profitable to little: but godliness is profitable unto all things” (1 Tim 4:8). The conciliar “laywoman” inverts the hierarchy: the opus operatum of yoga postures replaces the opus operantis of virtue. She admits the poses were “designed in ancient times to honor Shiva” yet persists because they “changed my life.” This is pragmatism elevated to a spiritual principle — the very essence of Modernism condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: the substitution of vital immanence for objective revelation.
The Blasphemous Trivialization of Demonic Worship
“I really enjoy showing fealty to false deities and demons. All while wearing revealing pants! I kid, I kid.” With this flippant aside, the author commits a sin against the First Commandment that cries to heaven for vengeance. Fealty to false deities is idolatry (idolatria), the gravest sin against religion. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches: “Idolatry consists in giving to a creature the honor due to God alone.” To joke about rendering such honor — even “in jest” — manifests a conscience seared by the conciliar spirit of religious liberty. The Psalmist warns: “All the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens” (Ps 95:5). Shiva is a demon. The postures (asanas) are not neutral calisthenics; they are mudras, ritual gestures that invoke and embody Hindu deities. Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (provided in context) declares: “His kingdom encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” A Catholic who deliberately assumes the bodily configuration of Shiva worship ipso facto denies the Social Kingship of Christ and enters into communion with demons (1 Cor 10:20).
The Protestantized Subjectivism of “Intent”
The author argues: “Even if I don’t MEAN to honor Shiva when I manage to pull off a wobbly natarajasana, isn’t there something wrong with a Catholic doing the thing that was designed in ancient times to honor Shiva?” She poses the question as a dilemma, revealing her Protestantized framework: morality reduces to subjective intention. This is the heresy of fideism applied to worship — the belief that interior disposition alone determines the moral species of an external act. The Council of Trent anathematizes this: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church… can be omitted by the ministers without sin… let him be anathema” (Sess. VII, Can. 13). The external act of worship possesses ex opere operato significance. The asana is a signum ordained to a res (Shiva). To perform the sign is to participate in the reality signified, regardless of “intent.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “The exterior act of religion… is an act of virtue… and therefore it is not indifferent” (Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 81, a. 7). The author’s “good Catholic” research project is a farce; she has already decided the answer by her practice.
The Conciliar “Discernment” as Replacement for Dogmatic Certainty
“I looked it up… This post is for paid subscribers.” The monetization of spiritual direction — simonia spiritualis — aside, the phrase “I looked it up” encapsulates the conciliar revolution: private judgment replaces the Magisterium. The Syllabus of Pius IX (provided in context) condemns: “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood” (Error 3). The author does not consult the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the Roman Catechism, or the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that yoga is a Hindu sadhana (spiritual discipline) incompatible with Christianity. She consults her own “discernment” — the neo-church’s substitute for faith. The Lamentabili Sane Exitu decree (provided in context) condemns: “The Church listening cooperates… that the Church teaching should only approve the common opinions of the Church listening” (Prop. 6). Here, the “listening Church” (the laity) dictates to the “teaching Church” — which, in the conciliar sect, has long since abdicated its office.
The Scandal of “Revealing Pants” and the Death of Modesty
The reference to “revealing pants” is not incidental. Yoga attire is designed for the exposure of the body, violating the sixth and ninth commandments. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii (1930) condemns “the shamelessness of women’s dress” as an occasion of sin. The author treats immodesty as a joke, revealing the laxism that permeates the conciliar “laity.” She is a “Catholic” who publicly boasts of immodest dress while performing demonic postures, and the neo-church’s flagship publication rewards her with a platform. This is the fruit of Gaudium et Spes and the “theology of the body” — a Protestantized anthropology that separates the body from the soul’s eternal destiny.
Symptomatic Diagnosis: The Neo-Church as Syncretistic Brothel
This column is not an aberration; it is the modus operandi of the conciliar sect. Nostra Aetate (1965) declares: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.” Yoga is the practical application: the neo-church rejects nothing of what is demonic in Hinduism. The “interreligious dialogue” mandated by Vatican II demands the adoption of pagan practices. The author’s “paid subscriber” model mirrors the simony of the conciliar structures: grace is commodified, truth is paywalled. St. Pius X in Pascendi identified the Modernist tactic: “They aim at such a development of dogmas as appears to be their corruption.” Here, the dogma of the First Commandment is “developed” into a lifestyle option. The “butter chicken” in the title — a trivial culinary reference juxtaposed with “War? Schism? Genocide?” — manifests the banality of evil in the conciliar church: eternal realities are reduced to content for a newsletter.
The Only Catholic Response: Anathema Sit
The integral Catholic faith, preserved in the catacombs of Tradition while the Vatican is occupied by the abominatio desolationis, gives one answer: Yoga is a Hindu religious practice, intrinsically ordered to the worship of demons, and therefore absolutely forbidden to the baptized. No “Christianized” yoga, no “just the stretches,” no discernment. The Council of Laodicea (Can. 37) forbids Christians from participating in Jewish festivals; a fortiori, Hindu demon-worship. The 1917 Code (Canon 1258) forbids communicatio in sacris with heretics and schismatics; a fortiori, with pagans. The author’s soul is in peril; the neo-church that publishes her is an accomplice to idolatry. Qui non est mecum, contra me est (Mt 12:30). There is no neutrality. The Kingship of Christ the King (Pius XI, Quas Primas) demands the rejection of every rival — including the “wellness” idol of the modern world.
Source:
The important Catholic debate (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 03.07.2026