The First Zen Institute of America, one of the oldest Rinzai Zen centres in the United States, is facing serious allegations of long-term sexual and ethical misconduct by its long-serving president, Michael Hotz, together with questions about how its board has responded to them.
Founded in New York in 1930 by Sokei-an Sasaki as a home for lay Rinzai practice, the Institute today occupies a brownstone on East 30th Street in Manhattan. Michael Hotz, who edited Sokei-an’s autobiography and led the Institute for many years, is still listed as its president on the organisation’s own website at the time of writing.
In late 2025, several current and former members submitted letters to the Institute’s board. In 2026, this material was compiled and circulated more widely by a party writing anonymously, who stated that the aim was to seek accountability through external channels and to compel a disclosure the organisation had not made. The accounts below are drawn from those letters. Names of the individuals concerned have been withheld here, since their letters were addressed to the board rather than written for publication, and I have not confirmed with each of them that they wish to be identified publicly. The allegations are unproven, and Mr Hotz has not, to my knowledge, responded to them publicly.
The most detailed account comes from a woman who came to the Institute in 2017, in her early twenties, during a difficult period in her life. She describes Mr Hotz, then in his seventies and roughly fifty years her senior, positioning himself over several months as a spiritual elder and confidant before initiating sexual contact and then a sexual relationship. While she is careful to acknowledge her own choices, she states that the relationship was initiated by him under conditions of psychological dependence that he had cultivated, and that the power imbalance made it his responsibility to exercise restraint rather than to exploit the situation. According to her account, he framed the sexual dynamic as a form of spiritual or “tantric” teaching, claimed rare meditative attainments that supposedly placed him in a unique position to guide her, presented secrecy as a duty she owed to the community, and spoke of the board and senior members with contempt. What she describes matches a pattern that recurs across the abuse cases documented on this blog: secrecy, power imbalance, the use of spiritual authority to satisfy the leader’s sexual needs, and spiritual language used to rationalise the crossing of boundaries.
A second former member, who was involved with the Institute in New York between 2017 and 2020, wrote to urge Mr Hotz to step down over what the writer described as a persistent pattern of inappropriate behaviour toward young women, citing reports shared by more than one person. A third account describes Mr Hotz sending love poetry and an inappropriate message to the writer’s friend, after which she stopped attending. That letter is notably measured, expressing a wish that the matter be handled with grace while stating plainly that his position of authority had become a liability to the community.
Beyond the individual accounts, the material raises questions about the Institute’s governance. According to the anonymous complaint, Mr Hotz’s departure from the presidency was accepted without an independent investigation or public disclosure; he is said to remain on the board and to continue residing on the Institute’s premises; and the organisation’s code of conduct reportedly allows only verbal reports, with no written grievance procedure, independent review, or transparent accountability mechanism. The complaint also states that members and prospective members have received no warning that would let them make an informed decision about their involvement.
The same anonymous complaint additionally raises a number of governance and financial questions. I have not been able to verify these independently, and I include them here only as questions that have been put forward, not as established findings. As a body designated by the IRS as a church, the Institute is exempt from federal tax filing and from mandatory independent audit, which the complaint suggests may reduce outside visibility into its finances. On this basis it asks whether the organisation’s practice of renting residences on the premises at below-market rates, together with an investment vehicle from which funds are said to be drawn, is consistent with applicable requirements for charitable or religious entities in New York, and whether any board members or affiliates have received undisclosed benefits such as subsidised residency. The complaint further notes that the Institute could not be located in the New York State Division of Corporations database or the Attorney General’s Charities Bureau registry under its IRS-registered name, while acknowledging that there may be innocent explanations for this, such as a historical charter or operation under a different registered name. Finally, it raises a concern about cremated remains of deceased members reportedly kept on the property, and whether this accords with municipal requirements. These points are unverified, and there may well be ordinary explanations for each of them; I note them only because the complaint asks that they be examined.
I have not yet contacted the First Zen Institute or Mr Hotz. I intend to do so following publication of this summary, and I will publish any response they wish to provide.