Acharya Prashant responds to the question of whether India is too religious to be spiritual by affirming the premise. He states that it is his everyday experience that people from overtly religious backgrounds are more difficult to teach, whereas those from irreligious or even atheist backgrounds are more receptive because their listening is less corrupted by prejudice. He calls it a travesty that religion, which is supposed to be the ecosystem that makes one spiritual, has become an obstacle. He explains this phenomenon using the Vedantic concept of *Maya*, which co-opts anything created to counter it. For instance, if you accord sacredness to a river, a deity, or holy verses, *Maya* will take possession of that very thing and turn it into its own weapon. He elaborates that this is the problem with organized religion, which he defines as a collection of frozen methods, traditions, and rituals. While these may have been designed to be helpful, they have lost their efficacy over time and have become instruments in the hands of *Maya*. This leads to a situation where people prioritize their rituals and traditions over the core spiritual texts like the Gita or the Upanishads, sometimes even denigrating the scriptures to justify their practices. This has created a conflict where religion and spirituality are at odds, a battle he considers the most important one to be fought today. Consequently, many people, especially the youth, conflate the two and, disliking the negative aspects of organized religion like riots and the caste system, discard spirituality as well, not realizing that core texts like the Upanishads are actively against such things. Acharya Prashant suggests that this corruption of religion necessitates a new spiritual stream, much like the Buddha had to establish a new path when the existing religion of his time was monopolized by the priestly class. Regarding India's potential to lead a global spiritual renaissance, he expresses hope but remains realistic, noting that such a movement might find more success abroad before being accepted in India, which he describes as "too religious." He also discusses the relationship between science and spirituality, referencing the Upanishads' view that worldly knowledge is necessary for self-knowledge. However, he cautions that without spirituality, science can become just another profession of the ego, and a scientist can remain inwardly ignorant. He asserts that superstition will be eradicated not by science, but by spirituality, because, in the absence of spirituality, science itself can become a new, modern form of superstition, as it does not address the inner self.