In her book Holy Hell, Gail Tredwell writes that Amritanandamayi eats fish curry twice a day. And then? This is not surprising for a fisherman's daughter, many good people worldwide share the same diet. What's wrong with eating fish?
It is true that vegetarianism is strongly advised in a number of religions and spiritual currents of India. Vegetarianism is mandatory in Jainism. In Hinduism and Buddhism, it is advocated by various scriptures and religious authorities. Spiritual seekers worldwide are influenced by Asian teachings and decide to adopt the vegetarian diet, out of respect for life. Some groups of activists also promote vegetarianism for ecological reasons. The industrialization is a great source of environmental pollution. Ethic issues are sometimes raised, regarding the cruel treatment inflicted to the animals in intensive farming. As a spiritual guide, it would be logical for Amritanandamayi to also have a vegetarian diet. But if this is not the case then it is not a big deal.
And yet. If she really eats fish twice a day, it is a big problem. Not because of the diet itself, rather because of Amritanandamayi's own words :
"Amma has no likes and dislikes. I accept whatever I get. In the ashram, they don't cook fish or meat. Not that I'm against it. But why kill animals? Some may say, eating vegetables also involves destruction. But killing a chicken is worse than destroying an egg."She clearly prompts to not kill animals to feed oneself. If she really eats fish curry twice a day, it means that she has lied and that she is hypocritical on a daily basis. As a spiritual guide, she is supposed to be an example, living according to what she preaches. So what is the value of her teachings, if her motto is "do as I say, not as I do"? If she lies in her teachings regarding such a trivial topic then what about the important ones?
This page tells us more about Amritanandamayi's diet :
"Amma may not even find time to sleep or eat"This is how she is generally advertised through various articles. Her official media coverage alleges that she almost lives like a breatharian, that she almost don't need solid food to live and to display her impressive stamina. This kind of statements surrounds her with a mystic aura that she wouldn't have with her alleged fish diet.
The end of the quote tells us what supposedly sustains her life :
"we are reminded of what Amma said once when someone asked Her if She had eaten. ”I am eating love,” She said."Her answer can sound cute, mysterious, deep or spiritual but it can sound disturbing as well. She keeps on saying that love spontaneously flows from her like a river, that she gives love out of compassion. Now she says that she eats love. Eating is about feeding oneself. Eating is about fulfilling one's own need. Eating is about taking. Which is true? Does she give love or take love? Is she a river overflowing with love or a bottomless abyss craving for love? Does she hug the people out of endless compassion or driven by an everlasting hunger?
An ex-devotee tells about his own experience of the darshan :
"Also, though initially I always had felt energized by Ammachi’s darshan environment, after a while subtle energies there were more and more flowing from me, rather than to me. So, unlike my experience with Guruji, I was sometimes enervated rather than elevated after Ammachi darshans. This was especially noteworthy when I visited Ammachi’s Kerala ashram in 1992."A simple visitor who went at the darshan once also tells about her experience :
"it appears that Amma is a psychic vampire, siphoning off the energy of her devoted followers"This woman wonders why Amritanandamayi is so fat. Could the Fish&Love diet be the answer?