‘IRL’ (as it now has to be called) community is essential.
We are living in an artificial world. And while I’m here, I wholeheartedly agree on the stance that some people’s depression is a perfectly natural response to an unnatural world. It isn’t them. They don’t need medicating. They need what is natural. Community being a key ingredient.
Thanks Adam, really appreciate you reading and you comment. That's a great point as well. Our body gives us the feeling of depression to let us know that something is out of alignment. A community that makes you feel seen can help bring people back on track and revive the faith in themselves.
While I can appreciate the concerns raised about the loss of community in today’s world, I think there’s another angle that’s often overlooked: maybe being more disconnected from community has the potential to connect us more deeply with ourselves.
When we’re not constantly leaning on external validation or groupthink, we’re left with a mirror to ourselves. That’s uncomfortable, yes, but it’s also where real introspection, self-awareness, and growth happen—truth be told.
Maybe the answer isn’t rushing to rebuild what was but reimagining how we define community and connection—starting with the one we have with ourselves.
So, instead of capitalizing on disconnection as a problem to fix, maybe it’s a call to shift our focus inward. Because the relationship we have with ourselves is the foundation for any meaningful connection we’ll ever build. And that’s where the real healing begins.
May I ask why you think this article is "capitalising on disconnection"?
Community isn’t about seeking validation; it’s about support, shared growth, and mutual healing. Solitude can be a powerful tool for self-discovery, yes, but if we stay in it too long, it can turn into isolation.
Healing doesn’t happen in a vacuum—we process, integrate, and deepen our growth through relationships.
It’s in sharing our experiences and learning from others that we reinforce our own healing. A strong community allows us to show up as our whole selves, not because we need approval, but because we recognize that collective healing is just as important as personal healing. We weren’t meant to do this alone.
Absolutely! That’s the beauty of communication — you can ask anything you want!
It feels like it’s capitalizing on disconnection because it has framed isolation as a major problem—one that, conveniently, you just so happen to have the perfect solution for. It followed the classic marketing playbook:
Call out a universal struggle
“Communities aren’t what they used to be. People feel more disconnected than ever.”
Make it feel heavy
“This isn’t just about missing social events; it’s impacting our mental health, stress levels, and overall well-being.”
Create urgency
“If we don’t wake up and address this, things will only get worse.”
Drop the magic fix
“Luckily, we’ve built the ultimate healing space! And guess what? You can try it for free!”
I’m not saying this space is inherently bad—I can’t claim that.
But the way this was structured felt like it was selling connection rather than genuinely addressing the issue. It took a deeply human experience (loneliness) and turned it into a marketing hook, wrapping it up in the language of healing while leading straight to a sign-up button.
In response to your reply to my comment, those are some strong points about community, but they also presents some gaps in understanding.
“Healing doesn’t happen in a vacuum.”
This assumes that healing must be relational, but that’s not true for everyone. While relationships can support healing, true healing is internal and doesn’t require external validation. Trauma, self-worth, and identity wounds don’t disappear just because we’re in a community—they require deep, personal work that no group can do for us.
“We process, integrate, and deepen our growth through relationships.”
This suggests that relationships are the primary way we heal. Yes, external perspectives can help, but they can also reinforce old wounds and keep people stuck in relational patterns rather than breaking them. True healing isn’t about how much we share—it’s about how much we actually process internally.
“A strong community allows us to show up as our whole selves, not because we need approval, but because we recognize that collective healing is just as important as personal healing.”
This presents collective healing as equally important as individual healing, which isn’t always true. Individual healing must come first—otherwise, people bring unresolved wounds into a group, seeking collective healing that they haven’t yet done on their own. That often leads to codependency, echo chambers, and performative vulnerability rather than real change.
“We weren’t meant to do this alone.”
This is a common belief, but it’s not a universal truth. Some people need solitude to heal. Others find healing in community. It’s not one-size-fits-all.
“Solitude can be a powerful tool for self-discovery, yes, but if we stay in it too long, it can turn into isolation.”
The phrase “if we stay in it too long” is a value judgment, implying that solitude has a time limit before it becomes harmful.
This isn’t true for everyone. Some people need extended solitude to heal, and what looks like “isolation” to one person may feel like necessary space to another.
“We process, integrate, and deepen our growth through relationships.”
A more accurate statement would be: “Relationships can support healing, but deep processing happens within.”
“We weren’t meant to do this alone.”
This ignores the reality that some of the most profound healing happens in solitude, away from the influence of others. A more neutral framing would be: “Some find healing in community, others in solitude.”
Those are the key details that stood out to me on a closer look, prompting my comment. I appreciate the follow-up and hope this clears up any questions you had and offers you a deeper perspective on some very complex topics.
Writing a book or creating a journal to support others is one thing. Gathering vulnerable people and offering them “support” without the proper education or knowledge to do so safely is another entirely. How you frame what you’re offering in such efforts matters—a lot.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of the article—I truly appreciate you taking the time to break it down and share your perspective. I understand your critique and agree that healing is not one-size-fits-all. Solitude can be deeply restorative, and what may feel like isolation to one person might be necessary for another.
That said, knowing Dave—now a co-founder of my Healing Hearts Hub community—I also recognize that his words come from a place of pure love and a genuine desire to support others on their journey. His intention is not to impose a singular approach but to offer an invitation for connection and healing in a way that resonates with those who seek it. Did you ever think that or did you just read into the marketing bargain of this article that hit you personally as something being sold to you?
You’re right—it is wise to be mindful, approach is everything. But I’d love to ask: Did you read this article from a place of mindful reflection, or did something within it stir a personal wound that led to a strong reaction? Could it be that the idea of community as a healing tool challenges a personal belief or experience for you?
Healing is complex, multi-layered, and deeply personal. So yes, healing doesn't have to just take place in a community - but I do agree that we weren't meant to do this alone - we are human beings who thrive off connection... it is in our genes and that is what we are reiterating with the power of finding your people online.
Healing involves solitude, shadow work, emotional regulation, and if you want to go deeper, feel seen, heard, and supported —sometimes, community. In a world where so many feel disconnected, creating safe spaces where people can be vulnerable and learn together is an incredibly powerful gift.
I appreciate this dialogue, as it invites us all to reflect deeper. Thank you again for sharing your insights!
I don’t doubt that Dave’s intentions are rooted in care and a desire to help others. But intention and impact aren’t always the same thing, you see. When healing is framed as something best achieved within a specific group, it risks creating dependency rather than true empowerment. My concern isn’t with connection itself but with how it’s marketed as the missing piece to healing—and whether the process is being adequately monitored to ensure safety.
As for whether I “just read into the marketing bargain”—I recognize the structure because I’ve seen it before, and I understand the typical intentions behind it.
Did you notice that your first concern with my response was the word “capitalize”? That might be worth reflecting on—what we fixate on is often connected to unconscious beliefs, desires, or discomforts within us.
Again, it’s not about taking issue with this effort to start a “healing” community in particular, but about the broader pattern of turning deeply personal experiences into something that can be packaged and promoted. That doesn’t mean the space is bad or lacking value, but I do think it’s worth questioning how healing is framed—especially when it’s tied to a specific solution being offered by those with little to no adequate education or experience to safely provide that. The last DIY project anyone should want to mess up is their mental health.
Did I read this from a place of mindful reflection? That’s a fair question—albeit a little convoluted—but I appreciate the space for reflection. I always approach topics like this with a highly critical lens, not just from personal experience, although I hold that as well, but from a broader understanding of how healing is often framed, marketed, and sometimes commodified. It’s kind of what I do. My personal relationship to this is more about guiding my decision to bring attention to it rather than affecting my ability to acutely analyze it.
Agsin, my response isn’t about rejecting the idea of community as a healing tool—it’s about questioning the way it’s positioned. Healing isn’t a one-size-fits-all process, and while connection can be valuable, it’s not inherently the answer. The issue arises when it’s subtly framed as the missing piece, which can create dependency rather than actual healing. My reaction isn’t about a personal wound—it’s about a pattern I’ve seen too often, where emotional needs become an entry point into a packaged solution. And that’s always worth examining.
I agree—healing is complex, deeply personal, and takes many forms. And it also requires adequate education and experience to safely facilitate that kind of work.
That said, my bigger concern isn’t about whether community can be healing—it’s about the responsibility that comes with facilitating vulnerable spaces, especially online. Labeling something as a safe space doesn’t make it inherently safe. No community, no matter how well-intentioned, can fully guarantee protection from manipulation, exploitation, or bad actors who prey on vulnerability. Encouraging people to open up without clear safeguards or professional oversight isn’t just optimistic—it’s potentially irresponsible. Healing spaces should acknowledge both the power of connection and the potential risks that come with it.
I agree, dialogue is good. I wish more people would question more things, more often—for a deeper understanding of what we’re actually absorbing, facilitating, and being complicit in online.
I read some of your early posts, and they feel quite genuine. I don’t question that part.
I also really appreciate the attention you took to read this article and your analysis. I do understand your points regarding the marketing framework and I don’t deny the patterns you’ve mentioned here. In my past articles, I have written a lot about community, societal conditioning, and healing as this has made up a lot of the work that I focus on. It just so happens that my plans to write another piece on community just happened to line up with the same week I joined up with Grace to work on this community. So yes, I figured I would offer a solution. Was the whole point of this article to sell something? Well, no. In fact, for those interested in trying out the community, there’s a free 30 day trial which is completely risk free. During that time, anyone could join and learn more about Grace and I, our experiences and the work we’re doing. They can then decide if they feel we are qualified enough to support them in their own healing journey. So in this case, there’s very little manipulation going on and it is left up to the people to decide.
I do hear what you’re saying about a healing journey being about solo work as well and completely agree with that. I actually think both are necessary and important. If you try one without the other, I’ve found that things become difficult. From my observations, a lot of people have trouble starting this work on their own and continuing with it. Being a part of a community in my opinion, isn’t just about doing everything together as a group, but rather coming together as a group to build a framework, which then branches off into healthy habits that each person continues on their own. For example, group community journaling could then evolve to become a habit where each person finds themself journaling on their own.
As far as credentials go, I think a person’s strongest credentials are in the problems that they have overcome and the way that they have been able to shape their mind to heal through their own experiences. I personally would want to trust and work with someone who has had direct experience in the trenches and reflected with their own healing journey to discover solutions that have worked, rather than trusting a degree. Sure, many with those degrees often have reputable healing journey’s as well, but so many do not. This goes for therapists, doctors, and psychologists as well.
So how does one go about proving their expertise? Well they need to be allowed to showcase their talents, which is part of what the 30 day free trial period is about. During that month, people who are interested can find out whether or not this type of environment works for them or not.
I fully believe that if something is working for you, you should continue doing that. If healing on your own works, continue that. If healing in a group works, continue that.
Nice to receive a reply from you on this. I appreciate you clarifying your personal take on what Mental Health support looks like.
You mention that people can ‘decide for themselves’ whether you’re qualified, which assumes they have the knowledge and discernment to assess that. But that’s exactly the issue—when people are in a vulnerable state, (i.e. loneliness) they aren’t always equipped to evaluate what’s actually safe or effective. That’s why qualifications exist. Lived experience is valuable, but so is structured education on how to safely support others. Some of this work you’re referring to (i.e. shadow work) is very invasive and can open up deep wounds in people if not worked with properly.
The ‘free trial’ angle may remove financial risk, but it doesn’t remove the emotional and psychological risk of entering a space where guidance is being offered without the proper safeguards. Encouraging people to open up is a responsibility, and I simply think that responsibility should be taken more seriously than ‘see if it works for you.’
So if someone joins your group, engages in discussions and materials, then leaves and takes their own life because something surfaced too quickly and became too overwhelming to process—what safeguards do you have in place to address that? Where can members turn if they feel something is inappropriate or harmful?
When therapy is dabbled in by those who aren’t fully equipped, there’s often enough knowledge to open deep topics—but not the necessary awareness or skill to safely close them off. That gap can leave people vulnerable, destabilized, and without the proper support to process what’s been uncovered.
This isn’t an online yoga class—you’re presenting it as a safe and therapeutic/healing space. Where people share personal stories and traumas. That comes with real responsibility.
To be quite honest, I stand firm on my concerns here and I have nothing further to add.
At the end of the day, people will make their own choices. I just believe those choices should be made with full awareness of both the potential benefits and the potential risks.
I highly recommend people research the risks associated with joining “unregulated therapeutic/healing online groups”.
BTW, theres some solid research showing that having one or two close, trusted friends is better for mental health than a larger community of acquaintances—especially when it comes to safety, vulnerability, and genuine emotional support. It’s a study highlighted by the Society for Research in Child Development I do believe. That may be of interest to you.
Loved this article Nick, especially with the studies and research you share about the dire need for us to deeply connect... Thanks for being with me on this journey of healing, together 🫶🏻
This article is bang on.
‘IRL’ (as it now has to be called) community is essential.
We are living in an artificial world. And while I’m here, I wholeheartedly agree on the stance that some people’s depression is a perfectly natural response to an unnatural world. It isn’t them. They don’t need medicating. They need what is natural. Community being a key ingredient.
Thanks Adam, really appreciate you reading and you comment. That's a great point as well. Our body gives us the feeling of depression to let us know that something is out of alignment. A community that makes you feel seen can help bring people back on track and revive the faith in themselves.
While I can appreciate the concerns raised about the loss of community in today’s world, I think there’s another angle that’s often overlooked: maybe being more disconnected from community has the potential to connect us more deeply with ourselves.
When we’re not constantly leaning on external validation or groupthink, we’re left with a mirror to ourselves. That’s uncomfortable, yes, but it’s also where real introspection, self-awareness, and growth happen—truth be told.
Maybe the answer isn’t rushing to rebuild what was but reimagining how we define community and connection—starting with the one we have with ourselves.
So, instead of capitalizing on disconnection as a problem to fix, maybe it’s a call to shift our focus inward. Because the relationship we have with ourselves is the foundation for any meaningful connection we’ll ever build. And that’s where the real healing begins.
May I ask why you think this article is "capitalising on disconnection"?
Community isn’t about seeking validation; it’s about support, shared growth, and mutual healing. Solitude can be a powerful tool for self-discovery, yes, but if we stay in it too long, it can turn into isolation.
Healing doesn’t happen in a vacuum—we process, integrate, and deepen our growth through relationships.
It’s in sharing our experiences and learning from others that we reinforce our own healing. A strong community allows us to show up as our whole selves, not because we need approval, but because we recognize that collective healing is just as important as personal healing. We weren’t meant to do this alone.
Absolutely! That’s the beauty of communication — you can ask anything you want!
It feels like it’s capitalizing on disconnection because it has framed isolation as a major problem—one that, conveniently, you just so happen to have the perfect solution for. It followed the classic marketing playbook:
Call out a universal struggle
“Communities aren’t what they used to be. People feel more disconnected than ever.”
Make it feel heavy
“This isn’t just about missing social events; it’s impacting our mental health, stress levels, and overall well-being.”
Create urgency
“If we don’t wake up and address this, things will only get worse.”
Drop the magic fix
“Luckily, we’ve built the ultimate healing space! And guess what? You can try it for free!”
I’m not saying this space is inherently bad—I can’t claim that.
But the way this was structured felt like it was selling connection rather than genuinely addressing the issue. It took a deeply human experience (loneliness) and turned it into a marketing hook, wrapping it up in the language of healing while leading straight to a sign-up button.
In response to your reply to my comment, those are some strong points about community, but they also presents some gaps in understanding.
“Healing doesn’t happen in a vacuum.”
This assumes that healing must be relational, but that’s not true for everyone. While relationships can support healing, true healing is internal and doesn’t require external validation. Trauma, self-worth, and identity wounds don’t disappear just because we’re in a community—they require deep, personal work that no group can do for us.
“We process, integrate, and deepen our growth through relationships.”
This suggests that relationships are the primary way we heal. Yes, external perspectives can help, but they can also reinforce old wounds and keep people stuck in relational patterns rather than breaking them. True healing isn’t about how much we share—it’s about how much we actually process internally.
“A strong community allows us to show up as our whole selves, not because we need approval, but because we recognize that collective healing is just as important as personal healing.”
This presents collective healing as equally important as individual healing, which isn’t always true. Individual healing must come first—otherwise, people bring unresolved wounds into a group, seeking collective healing that they haven’t yet done on their own. That often leads to codependency, echo chambers, and performative vulnerability rather than real change.
“We weren’t meant to do this alone.”
This is a common belief, but it’s not a universal truth. Some people need solitude to heal. Others find healing in community. It’s not one-size-fits-all.
“Solitude can be a powerful tool for self-discovery, yes, but if we stay in it too long, it can turn into isolation.”
The phrase “if we stay in it too long” is a value judgment, implying that solitude has a time limit before it becomes harmful.
This isn’t true for everyone. Some people need extended solitude to heal, and what looks like “isolation” to one person may feel like necessary space to another.
“We process, integrate, and deepen our growth through relationships.”
A more accurate statement would be: “Relationships can support healing, but deep processing happens within.”
“We weren’t meant to do this alone.”
This ignores the reality that some of the most profound healing happens in solitude, away from the influence of others. A more neutral framing would be: “Some find healing in community, others in solitude.”
Those are the key details that stood out to me on a closer look, prompting my comment. I appreciate the follow-up and hope this clears up any questions you had and offers you a deeper perspective on some very complex topics.
Writing a book or creating a journal to support others is one thing. Gathering vulnerable people and offering them “support” without the proper education or knowledge to do so safely is another entirely. How you frame what you’re offering in such efforts matters—a lot.
It’s wise to be mindful.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of the article—I truly appreciate you taking the time to break it down and share your perspective. I understand your critique and agree that healing is not one-size-fits-all. Solitude can be deeply restorative, and what may feel like isolation to one person might be necessary for another.
That said, knowing Dave—now a co-founder of my Healing Hearts Hub community—I also recognize that his words come from a place of pure love and a genuine desire to support others on their journey. His intention is not to impose a singular approach but to offer an invitation for connection and healing in a way that resonates with those who seek it. Did you ever think that or did you just read into the marketing bargain of this article that hit you personally as something being sold to you?
You’re right—it is wise to be mindful, approach is everything. But I’d love to ask: Did you read this article from a place of mindful reflection, or did something within it stir a personal wound that led to a strong reaction? Could it be that the idea of community as a healing tool challenges a personal belief or experience for you?
Healing is complex, multi-layered, and deeply personal. So yes, healing doesn't have to just take place in a community - but I do agree that we weren't meant to do this alone - we are human beings who thrive off connection... it is in our genes and that is what we are reiterating with the power of finding your people online.
Healing involves solitude, shadow work, emotional regulation, and if you want to go deeper, feel seen, heard, and supported —sometimes, community. In a world where so many feel disconnected, creating safe spaces where people can be vulnerable and learn together is an incredibly powerful gift.
I appreciate this dialogue, as it invites us all to reflect deeper. Thank you again for sharing your insights!
I don’t doubt that Dave’s intentions are rooted in care and a desire to help others. But intention and impact aren’t always the same thing, you see. When healing is framed as something best achieved within a specific group, it risks creating dependency rather than true empowerment. My concern isn’t with connection itself but with how it’s marketed as the missing piece to healing—and whether the process is being adequately monitored to ensure safety.
As for whether I “just read into the marketing bargain”—I recognize the structure because I’ve seen it before, and I understand the typical intentions behind it.
Did you notice that your first concern with my response was the word “capitalize”? That might be worth reflecting on—what we fixate on is often connected to unconscious beliefs, desires, or discomforts within us.
Again, it’s not about taking issue with this effort to start a “healing” community in particular, but about the broader pattern of turning deeply personal experiences into something that can be packaged and promoted. That doesn’t mean the space is bad or lacking value, but I do think it’s worth questioning how healing is framed—especially when it’s tied to a specific solution being offered by those with little to no adequate education or experience to safely provide that. The last DIY project anyone should want to mess up is their mental health.
Did I read this from a place of mindful reflection? That’s a fair question—albeit a little convoluted—but I appreciate the space for reflection. I always approach topics like this with a highly critical lens, not just from personal experience, although I hold that as well, but from a broader understanding of how healing is often framed, marketed, and sometimes commodified. It’s kind of what I do. My personal relationship to this is more about guiding my decision to bring attention to it rather than affecting my ability to acutely analyze it.
Agsin, my response isn’t about rejecting the idea of community as a healing tool—it’s about questioning the way it’s positioned. Healing isn’t a one-size-fits-all process, and while connection can be valuable, it’s not inherently the answer. The issue arises when it’s subtly framed as the missing piece, which can create dependency rather than actual healing. My reaction isn’t about a personal wound—it’s about a pattern I’ve seen too often, where emotional needs become an entry point into a packaged solution. And that’s always worth examining.
I agree—healing is complex, deeply personal, and takes many forms. And it also requires adequate education and experience to safely facilitate that kind of work.
That said, my bigger concern isn’t about whether community can be healing—it’s about the responsibility that comes with facilitating vulnerable spaces, especially online. Labeling something as a safe space doesn’t make it inherently safe. No community, no matter how well-intentioned, can fully guarantee protection from manipulation, exploitation, or bad actors who prey on vulnerability. Encouraging people to open up without clear safeguards or professional oversight isn’t just optimistic—it’s potentially irresponsible. Healing spaces should acknowledge both the power of connection and the potential risks that come with it.
I agree, dialogue is good. I wish more people would question more things, more often—for a deeper understanding of what we’re actually absorbing, facilitating, and being complicit in online.
I read some of your early posts, and they feel quite genuine. I don’t question that part.
Take care of yourself.
Hey Altum,
I also really appreciate the attention you took to read this article and your analysis. I do understand your points regarding the marketing framework and I don’t deny the patterns you’ve mentioned here. In my past articles, I have written a lot about community, societal conditioning, and healing as this has made up a lot of the work that I focus on. It just so happens that my plans to write another piece on community just happened to line up with the same week I joined up with Grace to work on this community. So yes, I figured I would offer a solution. Was the whole point of this article to sell something? Well, no. In fact, for those interested in trying out the community, there’s a free 30 day trial which is completely risk free. During that time, anyone could join and learn more about Grace and I, our experiences and the work we’re doing. They can then decide if they feel we are qualified enough to support them in their own healing journey. So in this case, there’s very little manipulation going on and it is left up to the people to decide.
I do hear what you’re saying about a healing journey being about solo work as well and completely agree with that. I actually think both are necessary and important. If you try one without the other, I’ve found that things become difficult. From my observations, a lot of people have trouble starting this work on their own and continuing with it. Being a part of a community in my opinion, isn’t just about doing everything together as a group, but rather coming together as a group to build a framework, which then branches off into healthy habits that each person continues on their own. For example, group community journaling could then evolve to become a habit where each person finds themself journaling on their own.
As far as credentials go, I think a person’s strongest credentials are in the problems that they have overcome and the way that they have been able to shape their mind to heal through their own experiences. I personally would want to trust and work with someone who has had direct experience in the trenches and reflected with their own healing journey to discover solutions that have worked, rather than trusting a degree. Sure, many with those degrees often have reputable healing journey’s as well, but so many do not. This goes for therapists, doctors, and psychologists as well.
So how does one go about proving their expertise? Well they need to be allowed to showcase their talents, which is part of what the 30 day free trial period is about. During that month, people who are interested can find out whether or not this type of environment works for them or not.
I fully believe that if something is working for you, you should continue doing that. If healing on your own works, continue that. If healing in a group works, continue that.
Hi Nick,
Nice to receive a reply from you on this. I appreciate you clarifying your personal take on what Mental Health support looks like.
You mention that people can ‘decide for themselves’ whether you’re qualified, which assumes they have the knowledge and discernment to assess that. But that’s exactly the issue—when people are in a vulnerable state, (i.e. loneliness) they aren’t always equipped to evaluate what’s actually safe or effective. That’s why qualifications exist. Lived experience is valuable, but so is structured education on how to safely support others. Some of this work you’re referring to (i.e. shadow work) is very invasive and can open up deep wounds in people if not worked with properly.
The ‘free trial’ angle may remove financial risk, but it doesn’t remove the emotional and psychological risk of entering a space where guidance is being offered without the proper safeguards. Encouraging people to open up is a responsibility, and I simply think that responsibility should be taken more seriously than ‘see if it works for you.’
So if someone joins your group, engages in discussions and materials, then leaves and takes their own life because something surfaced too quickly and became too overwhelming to process—what safeguards do you have in place to address that? Where can members turn if they feel something is inappropriate or harmful?
When therapy is dabbled in by those who aren’t fully equipped, there’s often enough knowledge to open deep topics—but not the necessary awareness or skill to safely close them off. That gap can leave people vulnerable, destabilized, and without the proper support to process what’s been uncovered.
This isn’t an online yoga class—you’re presenting it as a safe and therapeutic/healing space. Where people share personal stories and traumas. That comes with real responsibility.
To be quite honest, I stand firm on my concerns here and I have nothing further to add.
At the end of the day, people will make their own choices. I just believe those choices should be made with full awareness of both the potential benefits and the potential risks.
I highly recommend people research the risks associated with joining “unregulated therapeutic/healing online groups”.
BTW, theres some solid research showing that having one or two close, trusted friends is better for mental health than a larger community of acquaintances—especially when it comes to safety, vulnerability, and genuine emotional support. It’s a study highlighted by the Society for Research in Child Development I do believe. That may be of interest to you.
Loved this article Nick, especially with the studies and research you share about the dire need for us to deeply connect... Thanks for being with me on this journey of healing, together 🫶🏻