Nine Studies Excluded From Trial Show Orgasmic Meditation Is Meditation, Not Sex

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A judge presiding over the trial of two women, the founder of Orgasmic Meditation (OM) Nicole Daedone and her assistant Rachel Cherwitz, excluded evidence from nine scientific studies that suggest OM is a meditation practice, not a sexual one. The studies found OM practitioners report experiences similar to meditation, show brain activity patterns consistent with meditation, and demonstrate positive emotional and physiological responses - even among trauma survivors. However, the judge ruled the studies were inadmissible because the efficacy of OM was not on trial, despite the prosecution's framing of OM as a sexual practice that brainwashed women.

Why it matters

The exclusion of this scientific evidence highlights concerns about the prosecution's characterization of OM as a form of sexual exploitation, rather than a legitimate meditation practice. The studies suggest OM may provide benefits for mental health and interpersonal connection, challenging the notion that it is inherently harmful or coercive.

The details

The nine studies, conducted by researchers at institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, Thomas Jefferson University, UCLA, and MIT, examined various aspects of OM. They found that OM practitioners report experiences similar to meditation, show brain activity patterns consistent with meditation rather than sexual activity, and demonstrate positive emotional and physiological responses - even among trauma survivors. However, the judge presiding over the trial of Daedone and Cherwitz ruled this evidence inadmissible, despite the prosecution's framing of OM as a sexual practice that brainwashed women.

• The studies were published over the past six years, from 2021 to 2026.

What they’re saying