The image.
The money.
The women.
The pattern.
There is the version of Adam Schomer people meet publicly — charming, confident, ambitious and convincing. Then there are the experiences described by people who knew him privately: women who became involved with him, people who worked around him, people who trusted him, and people who say they financially supported a project he described.
One difficult relationship can be dismissed as personal. One failed project can be explained as business risk. One disagreement at work can be called a clash of personalities. The question becomes harder when similar concerns appear across money, relationships, work and responsibility. This page brings those accounts and questions together in one place so the record can be read as a whole.
Editorial note: Every statement on this page should be understood for what it is: a first-hand account, an allegation, a financial question, supporting documentation, or a formal finding. Those categories are not interchangeable. The material should be read in context and judged on the evidence that supports it.
Where did the money go?
People say they provided money for a project Adam Schomer described. Their central concern is not simply that the project did not succeed; it is that they say they were left without the accounting and clarity they expected.
According to people directly involved, Adam Schomer described a project, asked for support and received money from people who believed in what he said he was building.
The basic sequence is not complicated: a project was described, money was provided, trust was placed in him, and questions followed about what happened to the money and what was actually delivered.
People involved say they sought clarity and did not receive the level of accounting and transparency they expected. A failed project and an accounting dispute are not the same issue. The first asks whether an idea worked. The second asks whether the people who provided money can see, in a clear and verifiable way, what happened to it.
The clearest answer lies in the underlying record: the amounts received, relevant expenses, what the project actually produced and the communications explaining how the money was used. Placed side by side, those records can show whether the explanation matches what happened.
What was promised — and what was delivered?
Failure and deception are different questions. What matters is what people were told, what they supported and what happened afterward.
Adam Schomer spoke about creating and developing a project. People around him believed in the idea and, according to those involved, some chose to support it financially.
A project can fail without anyone doing anything wrong. Businesses fail. Plans change. Ideas collapse. That fact alone proves very little.
The useful comparison is simple: the promise, the payment, the execution and the accounting placed side by side. That is where any gap between what was represented and what actually happened becomes visible.
Was this an isolated situation?
Needing help is not wrongdoing. This section matters only because people close to Adam Schomer describe what they saw as a repeated pattern around support, ambition and accountability.
People who spent substantial time around Adam Schomer describe periods of financial dependence, repeated requests for support and reliance on other people’s homes. Some say there were times when he was sleeping on couches while speaking about large ambitions and future projects.
Those facts, by themselves, establish nothing improper. Staying with friends is not misconduct. Struggling financially is not misconduct. Asking for help is not misconduct.
The relevance, according to the people raising these concerns, is the pattern they describe: ambitious plans, support requested from others, dependence on that support and later disputes about what the support actually achieved.
Different beginnings. Similar questions.
These are first-hand accounts from people describing what they say they personally experienced. They are not, by themselves, independent legal findings.
“I met Adam Schomer through Monday Meditation.”
Sarah says she first met Adam Schomer through one of the Monday Meditation sessions he conducted. The setting mattered: it was an environment where trust, openness and personal vulnerability were already part of the experience.
According to Sarah, Adam Schomer later asked her out and the relationship became personal. She says the man she came to know inside that relationship felt very different from the person she had first encountered publicly.
Her account is that the relationship ultimately left her feeling used, discarded and ill-treated. The point of including her story is not that a relationship ended. Relationships end. The relevant question is how she says she was treated while trust was being built and after that trust had been given.
It started with an Instagram message.
Another woman describes a different beginning. She says Adam Schomer saw her photograph on Instagram, sent her a direct message and began a conversation that developed into a personal relationship.
According to her account, Adam Schomer later came to India. What began with attention and interest eventually became, in her description, an emotionally harmful relationship. She describes emotional abuse, manipulation and treatment that left a lasting impact on her.
The significance is not that two relationships both ended badly. It is that two women describe different beginnings but raise overlapping questions about trust, treatment and responsibility.
The issue is not how many people someone dates. It is whether everyone knows the truth.
Adults are free to date more than one person, remain non-exclusive or structure relationships however they choose. That is not the issue raised here.
The accounts concerning Adam Schomer instead describe:
- Overlapping romantic relationships
- Different versions of events being communicated to different women
- Promises that allegedly conflicted with other relationships
- Emotional manipulation
- Intense pursuit followed by abrupt withdrawal or discarding
- Mistreatment when relationships deteriorated
- Responsibility repeatedly being placed elsewhere
If everyone involved understands the arrangement, there is no contradiction. If one person believes they are in one kind of relationship while material facts are being concealed from them, the issue becomes honesty and informed choice.
When a private relationship reportedly reached the police.
One former relationship in India reportedly deteriorated to the point that Adam Schomer’s former girlfriend contacted the police.
That distinction matters. Contact with police is not the same thing as an arrest, charge, conviction or judicial finding. It does, however, form part of the chronology described by the people involved, and its significance depends on what the underlying record actually establishes.
Any police records, legal material or private communications should appear on this page only if they are lawfully publishable and have been reviewed appropriately.
Power is a better test of character than charm.
Public interactions show how someone behaves when there is something to gain. Working relationships can show how they behave when the power is unequal.
People who worked around Adam Schomer describe a very different experience from the public-facing version of him.
Their accounts include being spoken down to, humiliated, made to feel disposable and having to manage interactions around his moods. Some describe becoming reluctant to disagree because they felt ordinary disagreement could quickly become personal.
- Employees and assistants
- Junior colleagues
- People helping behind the scenes
- People whose position gave them less power in the relationship
Charm explains the trust. It does not answer what happened after it.
Being engaging, confident or persuasive can help explain why people trusted someone. Those qualities cannot resolve the questions that came later.
Adam Schomer can be engaging. He can be confident. He can speak convincingly about ideas and make people feel seen. Those qualities are part of why several people say they trusted him in the first place.
But the questions on this page begin after the trust was established: after money was provided, after relationships became intimate and after people began working closely around him.
Healing. Protection. And a difficult contradiction.
Adam Schomer’s public work includes projects built around healing, spirituality and child protection. That public record makes the private accounts presented on this page more important to examine carefully, not less.
Adam Schomer is publicly credited as a producer of HEAL, the 2017 documentary focused on healing and the relationship between mind, body and wellbeing. His production company also lists him as a producer and executive producer on the documentary Erin’s Law, a film project centred on Erin Merryn’s advocacy for child sexual abuse prevention.
A project about healing.
Public credits list Adam Schomer as a producer of HEAL, a documentary presented around healing, wellbeing and personal transformation.
A project about protecting children.
i2i Productions lists Adam Schomer as a producer and executive producer on the Erin’s Law documentary, which follows advocacy for child sexual abuse prevention.
The existence of those professional credits does not prove or disprove any personal allegation. But the contrast is relevant. When someone’s public work is built around healing, consciousness, responsibility or protection, it is reasonable to examine whether the values represented publicly are consistent with the conduct described privately by people who knew or worked with them.
The question here is not whether Adam Schomer was involved in these projects — publicly available credits show that he was. The question is whether a public mission should be considered separately from the private behaviour described by the people whose accounts appear on this page.
Publicly listed credits: HEAL — i2i Productions · Erin’s Law — i2i Productions
When everyone else becomes the problem.
Several people who have dealt closely with Adam Schomer describe what they see as a recurring tendency for responsibility to move outward.
- A relationship ends? The woman becomes the problem.
- Someone questions money? They are portrayed as difficult.
- Someone challenges his behaviour? They misunderstood him.
- Someone distances themselves? They were disloyal.
- A project doesn’t unfold as promised? There is another explanation.
Every individual event may have its own context. That is why evidence matters. But accountability requires being willing to ask whether the same explanation can reasonably apply every time.
Money. Projects. Women. People. Responsibility.
Look at every situation separately and there may always be an explanation. Taken together, however, several themes have been described.
People say they financially supported Adam Schomer and later struggled to obtain the accounting and transparency they expected.
Large ambitions and promises were discussed, while questions remain about what was ultimately delivered.
Multiple women describe experiences involving deception, emotional manipulation or harmful treatment.
Individuals who worked around him describe disrespectful and demeaning behaviour.
People close to Adam Schomer describe what they view as a recurring tendency for responsibility to ultimately rest with someone else.
Fraud is a legal conclusion. The underlying conduct is the story.
Some people involved describe what happened as fraud or financial deception. The label itself is not the evidence; the underlying representations, payments, records and outcomes are what matter.
People involved have raised serious questions about whether representations made around money and the project were accurate. Some describe the conduct they experienced as fraudulent.
That label should not do the work of the evidence. The stronger approach is to show the underlying record and separate three different things:
Those categories are not interchangeable. A personal allegation of fraud is different from documentary evidence of financial conduct, and both are different from a formal legal finding. Any conclusion has to respect those distinctions.
The record still has to answer these questions.
Serious claims become clearer when they are reduced to specific questions. These are the questions at the centre of the story.
Some questions may be answered by records, some by first-hand accounts, and some may remain disputed. What matters is not filling the gaps with assumption.
Nobody is perfect.
The purpose of documenting these accounts is not to demand perfection. It is to ask for accountability where accountability is due.
People make bad decisions. Relationships fail. Businesses collapse. People lose money. Friends fall out. Someone can behave badly and later change.
None of those things automatically defines an entire human being.
The concern begins when similar experiences are described repeatedly across unrelated parts of someone’s life: money, relationships, work, friendships and responsibility.
Look at the record as a whole.
No single failed project, relationship dispute or workplace disagreement carries the entire conclusion. Read the first-hand accounts. Compare what is said about the money, the project, the relationships and the people around Adam Schomer. Notice what is established, what is disputed and what remains unanswered. Then reach your own conclusion.