Kunga Yoga, 1601 River Road E unit 103, Kitchener, ON (2026)

Whether you’re interested in vinyasa, restorative yoga, Qi Gong or Tai Chi, we have something for everyone.

01/12/2026

The Promise and the Paradox of Spiritual Communities

Spiritual communities have long served as places of refuge, learning, and connection. Across cultures and traditions, people gather around shared practices in search of meaning, belonging, and inner development. Research consistently shows that strong social belonging is associated with lower rates of depression, increased resilience, and greater life satisfaction (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Many individuals are drawn to spiritual spaces because they feel seen, understood, accepted, supported, and taught in ways they may not experience elsewhere.

Shared rituals, ethical frameworks, and contemplative practices can foster emotional regulation, empathy, and prosocial behavior (Vieten et al., 2013). At their best, spiritual communities encourage service, generosity, accountability, and self-reflection—qualities that support both individual growth and collective wellbeing.

At the same time, these spaces contain inherent challenges that are important to approach with clarity and compassion.

⸻

Suffering, Idealization, and the Emergence of Power

Psychological research shows that suffering is one of the most common gateways into spiritual seeking (Pargament, 2007). People often enter communities during periods of grief, trauma, illness, or existential disruption. As a result, spiritual spaces may hold a high concentration of unresolved pain, even while promoting ideals of peace or enlightenment.

Like all human groups, spiritual communities are subject to power dynamics. Influence may accumulate through seniority, charisma, popularity, access to resources, or ownership of land and infrastructure. Research on authority structures demonstrates that power often emerges informally and may persist without adequate checks or accountability (French & Raven, 1959).

⸻

Teachers, Authority, and Role Expansion

Spiritual teachers often occupy roles that extend far beyond their formal training. Studies on authority projection indicate that people under stress may over-attribute expertise and moral authority to perceived leaders (Milgram, 1974). As a result, teachers may be treated not only as guides, but also as therapists, life coaches, parental figures, and at times even medical or healthcare authorities, despite lacking clinical qualifications.

While often well-intentioned, this expansion of authority can create ethical risk. Healthy communities recognize the limits of spiritual teaching and actively encourage collaboration with appropriately trained professionals when needed.

⸻

Ego, Competition, and the Control of Narrative

Social identity research shows that groups naturally form in-groups and out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In spiritual communities, this can give rise to subtle hierarchies based on perceived attainment, popularity, or endorsement by those in power. Despite teachings that emphasize humility, competition can quietly emerge.

One particularly harmful pattern is the creation of fixed narratives about individuals. Research on social cognition shows that groups under stress may label certain people as “good” or “bad,” projecting collective anxiety onto them (Allport, 1954). These stories can become ego-reinforced and resistant to nuance, especially when there is no system for verifying information or allowing for repair, accountability, or redemption. Individuals may be defined by outdated or inaccurate narratives that no longer reflect who they are—or never did.

⸻

Silencing, Majority Rule, and the Absence of Fair Process

In less healthy environments, communities may silence or marginalize individuals they do not endorse—even when those individuals are teaching the same doctrine in ethical and constructive ways. Research on group conformity shows that dissenting voices are often suppressed to protect cohesion rather than truth (Janis, 1982).

Decision-making may default to informal majority rule, determining a person’s standing without transparent procedures or neutral mediation. Louder voices often dominate, while minority perspectives go unheard. Skilled practitioners, by contrast, recognize that truth and wholesome knowledge are not confined to status or insider approval, and can arise from many sources (Grossmann et al., 2020).

⸻

Red Flags to Be Aware Of

Research on coercive groups and unhealthy organizational cultures suggests several warning signs that merit careful attention. While no single factor is definitive, patterns matter.

Red flags may include:
• Secrecy around decision-making, finances, or discipline
• Silencing or oppression of dissenting or uncomfortable voices
• Judgment and projection, where unresolved issues are attributed to others
• Gaslighting, including denial of lived experiences or rewriting of events
• Manipulation, emotional coercion, or conditional belonging
• Obsessive focus on certain individuals, behaviors, or perceived threats
• Gossip presented as concern, teaching, or “spiritual insight”
• Unacknowledged biases related to gender, history, status, background or popularity
• Bullying or social exclusion, especially framed as moral or spiritual correction

Research indicates that such behaviors often emerge gradually and may be normalized within the group, making them harder to recognize from the inside (Lalich & Tobias, 2006). Awareness and external perspective are key protective factors.

⸻

Generosity, Exploitation, and Social Stress

Because spiritual communities often emphasize generosity and sharing, they can be vulnerable to exploitation. Research on communal systems shows that a small number of individuals may take advantage of collective goodwill, including those with narcissistic or manipulative traits (Campbell & Miller, 2011).

In close-knit or isolated settings, prolonged proximity can intensify emotional stress. Studies on group isolation show increased polarization, scapegoating, and conflict under such conditions (Stuster, 2016).

⸻

What Healthy Spiritual Communities Intentionally Build

Research on ethical organizations highlights the importance of transparent leadership, clear roles, fair mediation processes, accountability for those in power, and openness to feedback. Healthy communities resist reducing people to static identities and recognize that growth, repair, and reconciliation are essential parts of spiritual life.

⸻

Entering Spiritual Community with Discernment

A wise approach to spiritual community involves entering with humility, compassion, and realistic expectations. An “empty cup” mindset—focused on learning rather than idealizing—supports clarity and resilience. Asking “What can I contribute?” rather than “What can I receive?” fosters mutual responsibility.

Equally important is discernment: recognizing red flags, seeking external counsel when appropriate, and being willing to walk away if integrity, fairness, or wellbeing are compromised. Research on autonomy and psychological health suggests that leaving an unhealthy system can be an act of wisdom and self-respect, not failure.

⸻

Starting over in a new community can also be a powerful and legitimate (though challenging) part of the spiritual path. Psychological research on identity development and post-traumatic growth shows that people learn, mature, and integrate wisdom through reflection on past mistakes and changed behavior over time. No individual should be permanently defined by a single chapter of their life or by narratives formed in a particular group context. Nor by unhealthy dynamics and misunderstandings that were formed unfairly or unintentionally. Healthy spiritual frameworks recognize that growth requires opportunity—that accountability and learning are not opposites, but partners. Entering a new community with humility, insight, and intention allows a person to practice what they have learned, to contribute more skillfully, and to embody values more consistently. We all deserve the chance to begin again, to do better than before, and to participate meaningfully in something life-giving, supportive, and constructive.

Final Reflection

Spiritual communities can be powerful spaces for healing, learning, and connection—but they are not exempt from human imperfection. True transformation does not arise from secrecy, control, or rigid narratives, but from honesty, accountability, humility, and compassion.

Community is not about dominance or exclusion.
It is about relationship, fairness, and shared humanity.

When spiritual spaces remain open-minded, ethically grounded, and willing to evolve, they become what they are meant to be: imperfect yet meaningful environments where genuine growth and connection can occur.

Namaste 🙏🏽

01/12/2026

Living From the Heart: The Science and Spirituality of Peace, Clarity, and Connection

In yogic philosophy, the heart chakra (Anāhata) is often described as the most difficult chakra to fully open and activate. Unlike the lower chakras, which are concerned with survival, pleasure, power, and identity, the heart represents a profound threshold: the transition from self-centered functioning to relational, ethical, and transpersonal awareness. It is believed that when the heart chakra opens, the benefits are many and far-reaching. Traditional teachings suggest increased inner peace, deep and restorative sleep (often requiring less of it), improved health, sharpened clarity of mind, deeper meditation, and a natural sense of ease that others—and even animals—respond to intuitively. People often describe feeling more grounded, more radiant, and more magnetically connected to life itself.

From a scientific perspective, many of these claims align closely with well-documented findings. Living from a place of love, forgiveness, acceptance, peace, kindness, and empathy has been consistently associated with reduced stress, improved cardiovascular health, stronger immune function, better emotional regulation, and greater psychological resilience. Research in positive psychology and affective neuroscience shows that compassion-based mindsets lower cortisol, increase heart rate variability, and activate neural networks associated with safety, social bonding, and cognitive flexibility. People who operate from these states tend to perceive situations more clearly, demonstrate greater problem-solving capacity, and adopt what psychologists call a “challenge mindset” rather than a victim mindset—seeing difficulties as workable and meaningful rather than threatening and overwhelming.

Conversely, living from chronic suspicion, anger, resentment, hatred, and negativity is strongly correlated with stress-related illness, depression, anxiety, cognitive bias, and emotional dysregulation. Neuroscience shows that fear-based states narrow perception, reduce prefrontal cortex functioning, and amplify threat detection systems. Over time, this leads to jumping to conclusions, projecting fears onto others, stereotyping, and forming rigid narratives about people, cultures, or groups that one does not understand or accept. These states impair clarity and create feedback loops of misunderstanding and conflict.

Importantly, fear and hatred can become addictive ways of being. They provide short-term ego reinforcement—feelings of righteousness, superiority, belonging, and purpose. Social psychology research on in-group/out-group dynamics shows that bonding over a shared enemy can temporarily increase cohesion. However, these benefits are illusory and fleeting. They come at a high long-term cost: increased stress, internal conflict, moral disengagement, burnout, and eventual fragmentation. Hate-based groups, bullying cultures, and shaming communities often experience cycles of backlash, infighting, scapegoating, and deterioration precisely because fear cannot sustain healthy cooperation.

By contrast, groups that form around love, unity, acceptance, kindness, and mutual success consistently demonstrate greater longevity, adaptability, and well-being. Studies on cooperative systems, restorative justice models, and high-trust organizations show higher performance, lower turnover, greater innovation, and better mental health outcomes. Groups that prioritize mediation, empathy, transparency, and accountability create environments where people feel psychologically safe—one of the strongest predictors of collective intelligence and success identified in organizational research.

Groups that fixate on past grievances or imagined catastrophic futures tend to expend more energy than they generate. Rumination and fear-based forecasting drain cognitive and emotional resources, leading to suspicion, backstabbing, and internal collapse. Similarly, groups oriented toward selfish or harmful goals inevitably create tension and strife, whereas those oriented toward uplifting others tend to thrive. Ethical alignment and prosocial intent are not abstract ideals; they are practical strategies for sustainability.

History and contemporary research also show that groups operating in secrecy—through manipulation, deception, coercion, surveillance, bribery, suppression, or public shaming—are far more vulnerable to legal, moral, ethical, and existential crises. In contrast, groups grounded in honesty, transparency, accountability, empathy, and respect are supported by trust, legitimacy, and moral authority. Truth and integrity act as stabilizing forces; deception corrodes from within.

Groups driven by revenge, bitterness, or fear are not only creating future suffering for others but are actively living in suffering themselves. Their worldview becomes dark, scarcity-based, and paranoid, marked by fear of retaliation and constant anticipation of worst-case scenarios. This perpetuates stress and reactivity. Groups that see reality clearly, in the present moment, are able to act more accurately, creatively, and effectively—without dragging along irrelevant baggage, hearsay, projections, or emotionally charged distortions.

Why, then, do groups so often choose the negative path? Research suggests several reasons: fear feels urgent, outrage spreads faster than compassion, and ego gratification offers immediate reward. Being “right,” assigning blame, and asserting dominance can feel safer than being vulnerable, accountable, or conciliatory. But safety built on fear is fragile.

The evidence is overwhelming that the kinder path—though initially more challenging—produces superior outcomes for individuals and groups alike. Especially as groups grow larger, more influential, and more invested, the ethical stakes rise dramatically. Power carries responsibility. It is neither reasonable nor just to expect the outnumbered, out resourced, marginalized, or less influential party to make all the perfect moves, absorb harm and blame, or endlessly appease those acting from hostility. When groups are rooted in hate, they are not seeking resolution—they are seeking validation.

The invitation, then, is to stop trying to win, to stop accumulating ego-supporting evidence, blame, and justification, and to start building pathways toward peace, fairness, understanding, and love—even when it feels hard, humbling or costly at first. The heart chakra, in yogic terms, is difficult to open precisely because it requires this surrender of fear-based identity. Yet both ancient wisdom and modern science converge on the same conclusion: living, leading, and organizing from the heart is not naïve—it is transformative, sustainable, and profoundly effective.

Choosing love is not weakness. It is clarity. It is strength. And it is the foundation upon which healthier individuals, communities, and societies are built.

Namaste 🙏🏽

01/10/2026

Moral Fixation, Deflection, and the Ethics of Accountability

Social psychology and ethics literature consistently show that individuals and groups often fixate on the perceived faults of others as a means of self-validation. This phenomenon—sometimes described as moral licensing, downward social comparison, or defensive attribution—allows people to feel justified, superior, or absolved without engaging in the more difficult work of self-examination. Research indicates that focusing on another person’s mistakes can temporarily reduce cognitive dissonance and guilt associated with one’s own ethical lapses, but it does not resolve them (Festinger, 1957; Bandura, 1999).

Minor infractions are especially attractive targets. Studies on moral judgment show that people who hold rigid, black-and-white thinking styles are more likely to overemphasize technical rule-breaking while ignoring context, proportionality, and intent (Tetlock, 2003). Catching someone in the act of breaking even a trivial rule can feel validating, as it creates a clear narrative of “right” versus “wrong.” Yet this validation is often illusory. For example, jaywalking is illegal because it can be unsafe—not because every instance of crossing a street outside a crosswalk causes harm. Empirical research on everyday law-breaking shows that many minor offenses are widespread, socially tolerated, and inconsequential when done responsibly (Tyler, 2006). Observing such an act does not make the individual immoral, dangerous, or deserving of persecution.

Fixation on these minor infractions frequently serves a deflective purpose. Psychological studies demonstrate that individuals who feel threatened by their own misconduct are more likely to engage in blame-shifting and moral accusation (Schlenker et al., 2001). By spotlighting another person’s small or technical violation, attention is diverted away from deeper, more systemic, or more harmful behavior—particularly one’s own or that of a group one identifies with. Importantly, focusing on another person’s mistakes does not excuse or mitigate one’s own ethical failings. Accountability is not transferable.

There is also a documented power dimension to this behavior. Sociological research shows that individuals and groups in positions of relative privilege are more likely to weaponize minor rule violations to maintain dominance, credibility, or control, especially against those with less institutional protection (Foucault, 1977; Ewick & Silbey, 1998). Selectively digging for “dirt,” endorsing widespread wrongdoing within one’s own group while condemning a single individual for a minor infraction, is a clear form of moral hypocrisy. It reflects not a commitment to justice, but a strategic use of morality to preserve power.

The inconsistency of moral judgment is particularly visible in how society treats legality versus legitimacy. This illustrates what legal scholars have long argued: legality alone is not a sufficient measure of moral worth, nor is it a reliable indicator of harm (Hart, 1961). Right and wrong exist on a continuum shaped by context, intent, proportionality, and impact.

Crucially, determining whether a law has been broken—and whether that breach warrants consequence—is the role of law enforcement and the judicial system, not private individuals acting as informal judges. Ethical frameworks across disciplines agree that citizens may report concerns through appropriate channels, but they are not arbiters of guilt. Spreading allegations as though charges were laid when they were not is ethically indefensible and, in many jurisdictions, legally actionable as defamation or slander. Research on reputational harm shows that unsubstantiated accusations can cause lasting psychological, social, and economic damage—often far exceeding the harm of the alleged minor offense itself (Feinberg, 1984).

Attempting to justify harassment, surveillance, bullying, conspiracy, or coercion by pointing to alleged misconduct that was never charged or proven is a textbook example of moral deflection. Inundating a person with unofficial “witnesses,” rumors, or insinuations does not retroactively legitimize years of unethical or unlawful behavior. Nor does it absolve collective responsibility for harm that has been widely observed, documented, and experienced by many. Group-based moral rationalization—where members reinforce one another’s narratives to avoid accountability—has been shown to increase ethical blindness and escalate harm over time (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011).

A positive and ethical path forward requires a shift in focus: from surveillance to reflection, from accusation to accountability, and from punishment fantasies to genuine repair. Continuing to attack, surveil, or undermine someone based on suspicion rather than lawful process is not justice—it is an unethical avoidance of one’s own responsibility. Communities are far more damaged by sustained manipulation, harassment, and abuse of power than by the minor infractions that are often used as pretexts to justify them.

Ultimately, whether one agrees with a particular law or not, ethical maturity demands that individuals and groups address their own ongoing failings first. The evidence is clear: deflecting attention onto another person’s minor mistakes does not strengthen communities—it corrodes trust, escalates conflict, and perpetuates harm. True integrity lies not in catching others in technical wrongs, but in confronting the deeper injustices we enable, excuse, or participate in ourselves.

Namaste 🙏🏽

01/09/2026

Resolving Conflict with Integrity: Why Power Demands Accountability over Manipulation

Effective problem-solving in individuals, organizations, and societies depends on principles that are both ethical and evidence-based: honesty, accountability, direct communication, and respect for all parties involved. A substantial body of research across psychology, organizational behavior, conflict resolution, and ethics demonstrates that attempts to resolve conflict through manipulation, intimidation, defamation, or narrative control are not only morally indefensible, but also ineffective and ultimately self-defeating.

Research in organizational psychology consistently shows that transparent, direct confrontation of issues leads to higher trust, stronger group cohesion, and better long-term outcomes than avoidance, coercion, or reputational attacks. Studies on procedural justice (Tyler & Blader, 2003) demonstrate that people are far more likely to accept difficult outcomes—even unfavorable ones—when they believe the process was fair, respectful, and honest. When power is exercised through covert influence, secrecy, or social manipulation, trust collapses and conflict escalates rather than resolves.

The misuse of power is especially damaging because those in positions of authority also tend to control information flow. Research on power asymmetry and information control shows that individuals and institutions with greater authority often construct strong narratives to justify why open and transparent conversations “cannot” occur. These narratives are frequently framed as necessary for protection, safety, legal risk, reputational stability, or organizational cohesion. While such justifications can appear reasonable on the surface, studies in political psychology and organizational ethics demonstrate that they are often used to prevent questioning, limit accountability, and ensure that alternative interpretations do not reach unintended audiences (Ashforth & Anand, 2003).

Once secrecy is justified, mechanisms of control tend to follow. Research on institutional self-protection shows that powerful actors frequently restrict who is allowed access to information, discourage dissent, and frame challenges to the dominant narrative as threats, disloyalty, or harm. This creates an environment in which questioning the story becomes socially or professionally risky, even when legitimate concerns exist. Over time, this suppression of dialogue reinforces groupthink and moral disengagement rather than safety or justice.

Social psychology research on power further shows that individuals or groups with greater authority, resources, or social capital carry a heightened ethical responsibility, not a diminished one (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Power increases one’s ability to shape narratives—but it also increases the obligation to allow those narratives to be examined, challenged, and corrected. When power is instead used to silence, deflect, or obscure, it erodes legitimacy and harms not only individuals but entire communities.

Manipulative strategies may produce short-term compliance, particularly when information is tightly controlled, but longitudinal research indicates they fail over time. Studies on deception, whistleblowing, and institutional failure show that suppressed truths tend to resurface, often with greater consequences due to the accumulated harm of denial and secrecy (Ten Brinke & Porter, 2012). In contrast, environments that allow transparency, accountability, and corrective dialogue are significantly more resilient.

Deflecting responsibility by reframing one’s own harmful actions as misunderstandings, or by exaggerating the faults of others while preventing open discussion, is another well-documented failure mode. Attribution theory research demonstrates that chronic blame-shifting escalates conflict and entrenches adversarial thinking, while accountability reduces defensiveness and opens space for resolution (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985). Blocking others from speaking, questioning, or repairing harm does not create safety—it institutionalizes injustice.

There is also strong evidence that using social networks, authority structures, or informational advantages to influence perceptions against someone in a weaker position constitutes ethical abuse. Studies on workplace bullying, institutional gaslighting, and social exclusion show that such behavior causes measurable psychological harm and corrodes trust across entire systems—not just for direct targets, but for observers who learn that truth-telling is unsafe (Einarsen et al., 2011).

Crucially, responsibility increases—not decreases—when one holds control over the narrative. Ethical leadership research consistently finds that leaders who admit errors, allow scrutiny, and permit open dialogue are perceived as more credible and trustworthy, even after serious mistakes (Owens & Hekman, 2012). In contrast, those who rely on secrecy, intimidation, or tightly managed stories deepen the original harm and amplify long-term damage.

Blaming others for perpetuating conflict while simultaneously restricting their ability to speak or defend themselves reflects moral disengagement. Bandura’s work shows how individuals justify harm by recasting themselves as victims of challenge rather than agents accountable for their actions. This self-deception neither resolves conflict nor produces justice.

Ultimately, research across disciplines converges on a clear conclusion: peace, safety, and justice emerge from courage, not control. Acting with integrity means addressing problems directly, allowing transparency even when uncomfortable, and accepting scrutiny when one has power. It means acknowledging mistakes rather than hiding them behind secrecy or narrative management.

Manipulation, information control, and secrecy may delay accountability, but they cannot prevent it. Over time, truth asserts itself—not because it is forceful, but because it is persistent. The ethical path is not only the right one; it is the only approach shown to sustain trust, protect communities, and create outcomes that endure beyond short-term advantage or ego preservation.

Those with power, influence, and control over narratives bear the greatest responsibility to lead with honesty and humility—especially when there is a serious power, resource and privelage imbalance. Doing the right thing is not contingent on others doing so first; it is the defining obligation of ethical leadership.

Namaste 🙏🏽

01/09/2026

The Hidden Cost of Celebrity and Popularity Culture

Modern celebrity culture often presents itself as harmless entertainment, but beneath the surface it carries real psychological and social costs. Fixating on celebrities and public figures can quietly become a way of avoiding the harder, more meaningful work of self-reflection, growth, and relationship-building. When our attention is consumed by the lives, traits, successes, or failures of people we will never truly know, we are often postponing engagement with our own inner life.

Psychologists have long noted that upward social comparison—measuring ourselves against people perceived as more successful, attractive, or admired—can increase feelings of envy, inadequacy, anxiety, and depression. Research published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology shows that frequent comparison, especially through media and social platforms, is strongly associated with lower self-esteem and reduced life satisfaction. When we compare our real, complex lives to highly curated public personas, the comparison is inherently distorted and unfair.

Celebrity figures function largely as projections. We believe we know who they are because we have invested hours of attention in them, yet what we know is a manufactured image shaped by branding teams, algorithms, publicists, and selective storytelling. Studies on parasocial relationships—one-sided emotional attachments to public figures—show that while they can feel intimate, they lack reciprocity and depth. They can subtly replace or dilute investment in real relationships, leaving people feeling connected without actually being supported.

This fixation does not come without cost to our personal lives. Time and emotional energy spent tracking celebrity drama, scandals, or idealized lifestyles is energy not spent deepening friendships, nurturing partnerships, repairing family bonds, or developing skills that bring meaning and agency. Research from the University of Michigan has shown that increased social media consumption correlates with declines in empathy and face-to-face social engagement, particularly when attention is oriented toward public figures rather than mutual interaction.

Celebrity obsession also narrows our awareness. A culture trained to focus on spectacle becomes less attentive to the realities unfolding in its own communities—local suffering, ethical concerns, environmental degradation, or opportunities for meaningful action. Attention is a finite resource, and where it goes shapes what we perceive as important. Philosopher Simone Weil described attention as a moral act; what we repeatedly attend to quietly forms our values.

Importantly, this culture can harm celebrities themselves. Psychological research and numerous firsthand accounts from public figures document the mental health toll of constant projection, scrutiny, and exaggeration. When millions project fantasies, hatred, idealization, or moral expectations onto a single individual, it becomes difficult—sometimes impossible—for that person to live a grounded, peaceful, or authentic life. The same dehumanization that distorts our inner world often distorts theirs.

This fixation also makes people more susceptible to social media programming, where algorithms deliberately amplify emotionally charged content to capture and monetize attention.

A healthier alternative is both simple and demanding: work on yourself. Invest in your character, your relationships, your skills, and your presence. Develop hobbies that engage your hands and mind. Learn something difficult. Build real, in-person bonds around shared values, creativity, service, or curiosity. These are the arenas where attention actually transforms lives—yours and others’.

When we stop idolizing public figures and redirect our focus inward and outward toward what is real and reachable, we model something essential for the next generation: that fulfillment comes not from watching other people live, but from actively participating in our own lives with depth, responsibility, and care.

Where attention goes, life follows. Choose wisely.

Namaste 🙏🏽

Address

1601 River Road E Unit 103
Kitchener, ON
N2A3Y4

Website

http://www.kungayoga.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Kunga Yoga posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Kunga Yoga:

Kunga Yoga

01/12/2026

01/12/2026

01/10/2026

01/09/2026

01/09/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category