#FactCheck - Viral Video of ‘Hatha Yogi’ Meditating on Snowy Mountain Is AI-Generated
A video claiming to show a Hatha yogi performing extreme penance on a snow-covered mountain amid strong icy winds is going viral on social media. In the clip, the ascetic is seen balancing on one hand in a yoga posture, while users portray the visuals as a rare example of extraordinary spiritual endurance in harsh climatic conditions.
However, an investigation by the CyberPeace Foundation has found the claim to be false. Our analysis confirms that the viral video is AI-generated and does not depict a real person or an actual event.
Claim:
A Instagram user shared the video with the caption:
“Hatha yogi, what kind of soil are these people made of?” The post suggests that the visuals show a real yogi performing intense meditation on a frozen mountain.
- https://www.instagram.com/reels/DTK32TvDGIJ/
- (Archive link as provided) https://perma.cc/H84M-MGXZ
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, the CyberPeace Foundation conducted a detailed examination of the viral video.No credible or verifiable news reports were found to support the claim that such an incident ever occurred.
The viral video was analysed using the AI detection tool Deepfake-O-Meter.Its AVSRDD (2025) module flagged the video as AI-generated, confirming that the visuals were digitally created and not recorded in real life.
Multiple indicators within the footage,such as unnatural body balance, environmental inconsistencies, and visual artifacts are consistent with AI-generated content.
Conclusion
The viral video purportedly showing a yogi meditating on a frozen mountain is not real. It has been created using artificial intelligence and is being circulated on social media with a misleading narrative. Users are advised to exercise caution and verify content before sharing such sensational claims.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Misinformation is rampant all over the world and impacting people at large. In 2023, UNESCO commissioned a survey on the impact of Fake News which was conducted by IPSOS. This survey was conducted in 16 countries that are to hold national elections in 2024 with a total of 2.5 billion voters and showed how pressing the need for effective regulation had become and found that 85% of people are apprehensive about the repercussions of online disinformation or misinformation. UNESCO has introduced a plan to regulate social media platforms in light of these worries, as they have become major sources of misinformation and hate speech online. This action plan is supported by the worldwide opinion survey, highlighting the urgent need for strong actions. The action plan outlines the fundamental principles that must be respected and concrete measures to be implemented by all stakeholders associated, i.e., government, regulators, civil society and the platforms themselves.
The Key Areas in Focus of the Action Plan
The focus area of the action plan is on the protection of the Freedom of Expression while also including access to information and other human rights in digital platform governance. The action plan works on the basic premise that the impact on human rights becomes the compass for all decision-making, at every stage and by every stakeholder. Groups of independent regulators work in close coordination as part of a wider network, to prevent digital companies from taking advantage of disparities between national regulations. Moderation of content as a feasible and effective option at the required scale, in all regions and all languages.
The algorithms of these online platforms, particularly the social media platforms are established, but it is too often geared towards maximizing engagement rather than the reliability of information. Platforms are required to take on more initiative to educate and train users to be critical thinkers and not just hopers. Regulators and platforms are in a position to take strong measures during particularly sensitive conditions ranging from elections to crises, particularly the information overload that is taking place.
Key Principles of the Action Plan
- Human Rights Due Diligence: Platforms are required to assess their impact on human rights, including gender and cultural dimensions, and to implement risk mitigation measures. This would ensure that the platforms are responsible for educating users about their rights.
- Adherence to International Human Rights Standards: Platforms must align their design, content moderation, and curation with international human rights standards. This includes ensuring non-discrimination, supporting cultural diversity, and protecting human moderators.
- Transparency and Openness: Platforms are expected to operate transparently, with clear, understandable, and auditable policies. This includes being open about the tools and algorithms used for content moderation and the results they produce.
- User Access to Information: Platforms should provide accessible information that enables users to make informed decisions.
- Accountability: Platforms must be accountable to their stakeholders which would include the users and the public, which would ensure that redressal for content-related decisions is not compromised. This accountability extends to the implementation of their terms of service and content policies.
Enabling Environment for the application of the UNESCO Plan
The UNESCO Action Plan to counter misinformation has been created to create an environment where freedom of expression and access to information flourish, all while ensuring safety and security for digital platform users and non-users. This endeavour calls for collective action—societies as a whole must work together. Relevant stakeholders, from vulnerable groups to journalists and artists, enable the right to expression.
Conclusion
The UNESCO Action Plan is a response to the dilemma that has been created due to the information overload, particularly, because the distinction between information and misinformation has been so clouded. The IPSOS survey has revealed the need for an urgency to address these challenges in the users who fear the repercussions of misinformation.
The UNESCO action plan provides a comprehensive framework that emphasises the protection of human rights, particularly freedom of expression, while also emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, and education in the governance of digital platforms as a priority. By advocating for independent regulators and encouraging platforms to align with international human rights standards, UNESCO is setting the stage for a more responsible and ethical digital ecosystem.
The recommendations include integrating regulators through collaborations and promoting global cooperation to harmonize regulations, expanding the Digital Literacy campaign to educate users about misinformation risks and online rights, ensuring inclusive access to diverse content in multiple languages and contexts, and monitoring and refining tech advancements and regulatory strategies as challenges evolve. To ultimately promote a true online information landscape.
Reference
- https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/online-disinformation-unesco-unveils-action-plan-regulate-social-media-platforms
- https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2023/11/unesco_ipsos_survey.pdf
- https://dig.watch/updates/unesco-sets-out-strategy-to-tackle-misinformation-after-ipsos-survey
Introduction
In April 2026, a class action suit in a federal court in California rejuvenated one of the most basic assertions in digital communication: that private messages are private. The suit claims that Meta Platforms, its subsidiary WhatsApp, and third-party contractors such as Accenture could have accessed user messages even though it had long promised end-to-end encryption.
This case is not merely about a single company or a single platform. It poses more profound questions regarding the definition, communication and regulation of privacy in an age when digital infrastructure is becoming more and more incomprehensible or unprovable to regular users.
What the Lawsuit Actually Says
The suit was filed by plaintiffs Brian Y. Shirazi and Nida Samson, who alleged that WhatsApp, Meta and contractors had intercepted and shared private messages with third parties without their consent. The complaint states that the federal investigators were notified by the whistleblowers that employees of Meta and external contractors had access to the content of WhatsApp messages that were expected to be encrypted and inaccessible.
This directly puts into question the main privacy promise of WhatsApp. The platform has been promoting itself as an end-to-end encrypted service in which not even WhatsApp can read your messages. The case asserts that this assertion was deceptive in its application and that no one ever gave any consent prior to their messages being intercepted, stored, or read.
The plaintiffs are proposing to represent a nationwide class of users of WhatsApp who sent or received messages between April 5, 2016, and the current time and subclasses in California and Pennsylvania. The claims involve breach of contract, California laws on privacy and data violations, false advertising and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
It should be mentioned that they are allegations. Similar assertions have been refuted by Metacomet in the past, with the company asserting that its encryption frameworks ensure that the company cannot access the messages. The case is in progress, and no facts have been found.
The Grey Area No One Talks About
In order to see the significance of this lawsuit outside the court, it is useful to consider the way modern messaging platforms actually work. In principle, end-to-end encryption means that only the sender and receiver can decipher a message. Even the service provider should not be able to access the content.
However, there is a grey space that is seldom publicly discussed: content moderation. User reports, metadata analysis or restricted message review processes are common methods used by platforms to identify harmful content, like fraud, child exploitation, or spam. The complaint indicates that such moderation procedures might have opened avenues to the content of messages to human reviewers or automated systems more than users were made to think.
This is not the first time that privacy and safety are at odds. Many jurisdictions have also advocated access to encrypted communications through legal means in the name of national security or criminal investigations. What this suit does is put that tension into even more stark relief by asking whether platforms are really open with users about these trade-offs.
The Consent Problem
The emphasis on consent is one of the most significant implications of this case. The plaintiffs claim that the users were never warned that their messages would be accessed by the employees or third parties and were never provided with any meaningful option on the same.
This is where the case turns into a data governance issue, rather than a legal one. Most data protection models consider the legality of data processing to be based on whether the users know how their data is being processed or not. When the accusations are found to be true, then the matter is not technical. It would be a contractual and ethical failure, a disjuncture between what platforms promise and what they do.
The implications are huge to the billions of users who use WhatsApp to communicate, both personally and professionally, and even politically.
What This Means Going Forward
An effective attack on the encryption assertions of WhatsApp might have actual implications for the rest of the digital ecosystem. Users might start doubting that any platform can be really considered to guarantee privacy. The regulators can advocate more stringent disclosure policies and compulsory independent audits of encryption systems. Social networks might have to re-architect their moderation frameworks to make sure that safety features do not silently compromise privacy guarantees that they claim.
Meanwhile, there is a real policy dilemma in this case that cannot be disregarded. Complete privacy may preclude the capacity to identify abuse or hateful material. The manner in which that balance is achieved and, more to the point, the manner in which it is made transparent to users is an issue that has yet to be addressed by policymakers, civil society and the tech industry.
Other technical experts have also questioned the plausibility of the claims in the lawsuit at scale, noting that it would be an extraordinary undertaking to systematically bypass end-to-end encryption. This further supports the argument of independent verification mechanisms. The problem is that users should not be forced to decide what they should believe in more: corporate guarantees or legal charges. There must be rules that can be enforced which are above the two.
Conclusion: Beyond One Lawsuit
The WhatsApp class action is eventually concerning a structural issue within the digital economy. Users are expected to have faith in systems that they cannot observe, on the assertions that they cannot test themselves.
This case is a warning, regardless of whether the allegations are proved or not. Privacy cannot be based on marketing language. It needs legally binding norms, actual transparency in the treatment of data, and external control that will provide users with something more to hang on than a tagline.
References
- https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/lawsuit-claims-meta-can-access-whatsapp-messages-despite-end-to-end-encryption-2
- https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2026/02/02/whatsapp-encryption-a-lawsuit-and-a-lot-of-noise/
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-25/lawsuit-claims-meta-can-see-whatsapp-chats-in-breach-of-privacy
- https://www.classaction.org/blog/despite-privacy-promises-meta-third-parties-read-and-store-whatsapp-messages-class-action-lawsuit-alleges
Executive Summary
A video showing armed personnel detaining individuals on board a ship is being widely shared on social media with the claim that Indian Navy’s MARCOS captured 35 Somali pirates during a recent anti-piracy operation. However, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is actually from the joint military exercise ‘LAMITIYE 2026’, held in Seychelles in March, involving the Indian Armed Forces and the Seychelles Defence Forces.
Claim
Users on X (formerly Twitter) shared the clip with captions such as: “Indian Navy MARCOS captured 35 Somali pirates,” presenting it as footage of a recent anti-piracy mission.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. This led us to the same video posted on March 20 by a Facebook page named “Defence Squad.” The caption identified the visuals as showing Indian Navy MARCOS and the Seychelles Defence Forces’ Special Operations Unit during the joint military exercise LAMITIYE 2026.
Link:
- https://www.facebook.com/reel/1263962865936234
- https://www.facebook.com/reel/1263962865936234
Further keyword searches led to multiple news reports carrying screenshots from the same video. These reports confirmed that the 11th India-Seychelles joint military exercise, LAMITIYE 2026, was conducted in Seychelles from March 9 to March 20.
We did not find any recent reports about the Indian Navy capturing Somali pirates. However, in March 2024, the Indian Navy had captured 35 Somali pirates who had hijacked a bulk carrier and taken hostages. The suspects were later handed over to Mumbai Police for legal proceedings.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video being circulated as footage of an anti-piracy operation by the Indian Navy does not show the capture of Somali pirates. Instead, it is from the India-Seychelles joint military exercise ‘LAMITIYE 2026’, conducted in March with the participation of the Indian Armed Forces and the Seychelles Defence Forces. While the Indian Navy had indeed captured 35 Somali pirates in a separate incident in March 2024, there are no credible or recent reports linking such an operation to the viral video. The clip has been taken out of context and is being shared with a false narrative, leading to misinformation about a routine military exercise.
