This paper investigates a commonplace defense strategy among legally ensnared gurus, which argues that sexual “abuse” is protected under the banner of “religious freedom” because it is sanctioned by theologies and ritual practices of tantric yoga traditions. For example, in 2024, after J. Michael Shoemaker (Swami Chetanananda), leader of The Movement Center, was arrested for drugging, assaulting, and raping female devotees, his defense lawyers argued that such practices are a form of tantric yoga and thus have religious protections under the law. Gregorian Bivolaru (MISA) promised that his tantric yogic sexual practices would catalyze “rapid and integral transformation;” he was arrested in 2023 on human trafficking, kidnapping, and rape. The gurus Osho/Bhagwan Rajneesh (Rajneeshpuram and Adi Da (Adidam) also claimed tantric yoga as the justification for the “intensive” sexual practices, including public and group sex; in Adidam, drugs and alcohol were also used as catalysts to disrupt normal consciousness. The survivors who filed the 2025 lawsuit against Adi Da's initial guru, Swami Muktananda (SYDA) also recount sex with the guru resembling tantric-informed sexual practices – penetration without movement or ejaculation, as did Jacques Albohair (Sarvatma), in his 2021 account of sex with his guru, Mata Amritanandamayi. This paper notes the similarities in the kinds of sex that occur between yogic gurus and their disciples, and questions whether these sexual practices may be considered ‘traditional' tantric yoga sexual practice. With a hypothesis leaning toward the affirmative, I suggest that the problem of abuse does not reside in the religiosity of the sexual act, but in the lack of shared epistemological consensus surrounding the sex act and the power imbalances between the actors. The “religious freedom” defense falsely assumes that religion ensures ethical protections and fails to recognize that religion can be expertly crafted to sanction and further abuse.