The Spiritual Abuse Institute (SAI) is committed to increasing transparency around the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in religious settings. As part of our ongoing efforts to promote healthy, accountable, and transparent ministry environments, we maintain a public, factual database of churches and ministries reported to have used NDAs that could limit transparency and open communication.

Today, we are adding Ankit Rambabu Ministries (ARB), the evangelism and healing ministry based in Lakeland, FL, to the NDA Disclosure Database.

ARB is an evangelism and healing ministry founded by evangelist Ankit Rambabu, who serves as its president. ARB is a young ministry at only five years old, but it has a big reach.

According to their website, ARB reached over 120,000 people in its first four years. Ankit also has over 100,000 followers on Instagram, with the ministry page reaching another 20,000 followers. The 30-year-old evangelist has gained significant influence in his young ministry through massive events, nationwide touring, and even invitations to Mar-a-Lago.

The ministry also boasts eye-popping numbers such as 26,641 salvations and more than 12,000 miracles. Planning to reach 36 cities nationwide through their events, ARB looks to be a growing ministry with an expanding impact.

According to the ARB website, “Evangelist Ankit first made his mark in the ministry of evangelism at the tender age of 13. His first crusade had an attendance of over one hundred thousand people. Since that first crusade, he has been a force for the Kingdom of God on earth. Thus far, Ankit has gone on to win more than 7 million (recorded) souls to the  Kingdom of God through mass crusade meetings.” (emphasis added)

While I am not sure how the ministry recorded 7 million salvations, that is a massive number that illustrates a huge ministry impact!

The ministry also appears to be doing well financially. According to their 2022 990 form (their latest available disclosure,) the ministry had 8 employees and $1.38 million in income and contributions. The ministry received more than a million dollars in contributions for 2021 as well according to 990 forms.

Based on the growth of the ministry, one could reasonably assume that these numbers have grown considerably since then.

And according to ARB, they expect even more in the next three years.

“The vision for the next three years is nothing short of spectacular, with the expectation of witnessing the greatest outpouring of revival that America has ever experienced. The ministry is poised to break through barriers, transcend boundaries, and bring about a spiritual revolution that will leave an indelible mark on the nation.”

They continue by stating, “ARB Ministries, under the guidance of evangelist Ankit, is poised to be a beacon of hope, illuminating the path to salvation and revival for America and the world!” Hope, salvation, and revival are all good and laudable things.

Yet the question remains: is NDA use a part of this grand ministry plan? And if so, is it necessary?

SAI received an anonymous submission of a document reported to be an NDA used by ARB. After careful review, including assessment against our published definition of a “silencing NDA,” we determined that the document meets our criteria for inclusion.

Being listed in this database does NOT mean ARB is abusive, unhealthy, or currently using an NDA — only that a document fitting our criteria was reported and reviewed in accordance with our process.

A silencing NDA is any agreement that could restrict a person’s ability to speak freely about their experiences at a church or ministry, beyond what is necessary to protect sensitive personal or member information.

Ministries choose to use documents that fit this description for various reasons. Many of which are not malicious, such as obtaining documents recommended by an HR or law firm.

Regardless of a ministry’s intent or their understanding of these documents, however, the reality is that they carry the potential to be used to silence people about concerns like sin, spiritual abuse, and other questionable practices. And these documents can often strike fear into the hearts of staff and parishioners who sign them, often under a feeling of duress.

The inclusion of churches and ministries on this database is about public transparency, education, and preventing those potential negative and harmful impacts. However, we make no assertions, assumptions, or judgments regarding a ministry’s leadership, theology, or community health based on their inclusion on this list.

All NDA submissions are reviewed for consistency and the redaction of personal information, unless the article is based on another publicly available report. The church is then notified and given an opportunity to respond or provide clarification before publication.

Ankit Rambabu Ministries was contacted on September 17, 2025, and we followed up on September 30th. Here are the specific questions we asked; we also invited them to share any comments or clarifications they wanted SAI or the public to know.

SAI did not receive a comment directly from ARB. The only direct response we received was an aggressive cease-and-desist letter from their attorney. This was emailed to us on September 30 just hours after we sent a friendly reminder of the approaching deadline. After receiving the cease and desist, SAI had no further contact with ARB or its representatives.

However, we did hear from them indirectly through a third-party mutual connection before the attorney got involved. We detail both responses below.

 If we receive a comment from ARB directly in the future, we will update this article to include it.

Within just a few hours of sending the first comment request to ARB on September 17, we received a direct message to the SAI Instagram account from a mutual third-party connection of SAI and ARB. According to this message, Jess Rambabu (Ankit’s wife) had reached out to them regarding our comment request and the impending article.

While ARB did not respond to our request for comment beyond the cease-and-desist letter, they did share some clarifying information with this contact. According to the message, “[Jessica] told [the third-party contact] they only use NDA’s for this reason:

We have NDA's because we have staff around 24/7 and when we have someone we're mentoring come in and tell us personal information when they're dealing with suicide, homosexuality, sin - our staff can't go spreading that information... we have high profile influencers come around us for counseling. We have to keep their privacy protected. We have data bases of hundreds of thousands of phone numbers of people who have come through our services and people who we have helped - we have to protect people's privacy.”

Protecting people’s private and confidential information is a good and admirable thing. It’s also something SAI allows for. Here’s how we explain it on the SAI website, which was linked for ARB in our comment request.

“Not all non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are harmful. This list focuses only on NDAs that function as silencing tools, which may contribute to spiritually abusive environments by suppressing truth, restricting accountability, or discouraging transparency…. Exceptions are made for documents that are solely intended to protect the private information of parishioners, such as HIPAA-compliant counseling confidentiality forms, or documents safeguarding sensitive financial or membership records. Such documents will not be considered NDAs for the purpose of this list.”

If the reported NDA we received had been solely as Jessica described in this message, we would not have pursued an article about it or sent ARB the comment request. Upon review, the document included multiple elements that could be used as silencing tools.

To clarify, the existence of these elements does not mean that ARB is silencing anyone, just that such documents have the potential to be used in that way.

Regarding these messages, keep in mind that SAI had not discussed this report, the comment request, or the upcoming article with anyone outside of ARB and the original anonymous source. So, it was a surprise to get a message like this, and this person would only know about this report if it were shared with them by an ARB representative.

We kindly thanked the person for their concern and reaching out, and we offered to  discuss it with ARB representatives and to help create a document that only protects the information they listed. We were also clear in the message that we were not assigning motive and were only addressing factual concerns regarding this report.

The mutual connection then shared our response with Jess. Her response was reportedly: “The NDA was not written by us it was a template we received from another ministry when we began our ministry. We will discuss this with our attorney.”

This is a valid and common response, and one I wish ARB had sent us directly. Many ministries are given NDA templates by HR firms, attorneys, and other ministries without understanding how they can be used to potentially silence people in broad and traumatic ways. At SAI, we understand that possibility and empathize with it.

At the same time, the damage that can be done through silencing NDAs is still very real, even if unintentional. That is why this work is important.

If ARB were to reach out to us in the future, we would be happy to discuss this with them and help the ministry to identify any elements of ministry agreements that could cause them to be silencing NDAs. They would have to release us from the cease and desist, of course, but we welcome constructive dialogue with all ministries regarding NDA use.

Regrettably, rather than pursuing the offered dialogue regarding this issue, ARB discussed it with their attorney and opted to send us a cease-and-desist letter instead.

From this writer’s perspective, the cease-and-desist letter was significantly more aggressive in tone than any of SAI’s previous communication attempts with ARB. However, readers can decide that for themselves. It is also unclear if the attorney who wrote it was aware of the third-party communication attempts by her client.

While cease-and-desist letters can be scary, it is not the position of SAI to let them stop or silence our reporting. Rather, it is our position to publish any such letters for the sake of public transparency and honest reporting.

The cease-and-desist was rife with misunderstandings and incorrect assertions that we will address here.

It started with the line: “Your recent messages to this ministry, particularly your unwarranted threats regarding its Non-Disclosure Agreement, are inappropriate and must stop.”

Here’s the reality: we sent a comment request once (to ARB and Ankit simultaneously.) A second communication was a reminder of the approaching deadline. There was no other communication, and no “unwarranted threats” of any kind in the comment request. The comment request was simple and straightforward, including the following elements.

1) SAI received a document submission from an anonymous source.

2) That source reported the document in question as an NDA used by ARB.

3) After review of the document in keeping with our publicly published process, it was determined to meet our publicly available definition of a silencing NDA.

4) We gave the ministry a fair opportunity to provide comment and/or clarity. We even offered them an interview and included practical and specific questions.

5) We reminded them of our previously established and publicly available removal policy and requirements. This was not a threat.

This article would be published regardless of their response. This comment request was not “inappropriate.” It is a common journalistic practice to ensure fair reporting.  Our goal in this reporting was to promote public transparency and to represent ARB honestly and fairly throughout the process.

The attorney continued with this puzzling assertion.

“To my knowledge, you have never been an employee of ARB Ministries, nor have you executed an NDA with this ministry. I am further unaware of any allegation of criminal conduct involving ARM Ministries, yourself, or your organization that would justify the tone or substance of your communications.”

The comment request never stated or implied that anyone affiliated with SAI has ever been an employee of ARB Ministries, nor executed an NDA with them. It simply stated we had received a document and report from an anonymous source.

The request also never stated or implied criminal conduct involving ARB. Our website (which we linked) and this article make it explicitly clear that we are not, and do not mean to imply, any wrongdoing of any kind. It is simply a report of fact.

The email finished with: “If you have specific questions about this document that pertain to an actual relationship you hold with ARB Ministries, direct them to me. If you do not, I strongly suggest you seek competent legal counsel before making any further threats or engaging in attempts to dox my client.”

No one ever said anything about a relationship between myself or SAI with ARB. We do not have one. Prior to this report, I was not aware they existed. I am simply doing my job and practicing fair journalism. And we have legal counsel retained.

Labeling this article as an “[attempt] to dox” ARB is unfounded and unfair. This is not doxing.

Doxing, for instance, could be someone publicly leaking my address on social media to intimidate or harass me over this work. For this report, we are not sharing the document in question or any of the elements within it. All we are doing is reporting that a document was reported to be used by ARB and fits our criteria for inclusion on the database.

This would be akin to someone posting on social media that I am reported to have an address and live in a home. That is not doxing.

The cease-and-desist ended with a note in the footer that said, “Support this Legal Ministry with your tax-deductible donation.” This was an uncommon and unexpected turn.

This is the first time SAI has received legal threats from a non-profit legal ministry. From a theological standpoint, it’s a bit sticky. This is a case of a Christian ministry partnering with another Christian ministry to threaten legal action against yet another Christian ministry.

In 1 Corinthians 6:1-7, the Apostle Paul discusses the theological implications and concerns with such behavior between Christians:

“When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! 2 Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? 3 Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. 4 If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? 5 I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? 6 But instead, one believer sues another—right in front of unbelievers! 7 Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you.”

 – NLT

This scenario is also a bit uncommon due to the involvement of donor dollars. It is a donor-funded non-profit (ARB) enlisting another donor-funded non-profit (Liberty First Legal -LFL) to threaten legal action against yet another donor-funded non-profit (SAI.)

This raises the question: Do donors to ARB and LFL know their donations are being used in this way?

While SAI has no authority over ARB or LFL, we want donor gifts to go to our ministry programs whenever possible. We will only engage in litigation when defending SAI against lawsuits filed by others. That is our position.

From a theological perspective, we do not see lawsuits or the threat of such to be consistent with our interpretation of Paul’s words to the Church in scripture. However, we understand that some Christians may interpret the scriptures differently, and we honor their right to do so while maintaining our own organizational convictions.

Liberty First Legal is a non-profit and public charity founded in 2021 in Tampa, FL. It is operated by constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall, and looks to be governed by KrisAnne and her husband, James, along with one other board member.

According to LFL’s website, “Chief Counsel KrisAnne Hall is an accomplished constitutional attorney and scholar with a zeal for defending liberty.” KrisAnne also appears to have connections to controversial televangelist Kenneth Copeland and regularly appears on The Victory Channel, which the Copeland Network operates. These appearances and her work in constitutional education have garnered an extensive reach.

According their website, “LFL provides free legal assistance to those who find the practice of their religious faith or civil liberties being threatened by governmental regulation, intrusion, or prohibition in one form or another. LFL exists to help preserve religious and civil liberty for you, your children and ages and millions yet unborn.”

These are admirable things, and I personally appreciate KrisAnne’s work in educating people about the United States Constitution. However, it is unclear how any of these things apply to SAI or this reporting.

The non-profit’s listed programs on Guidestar include: making educational documentaries; presenting workshops and webinars on constitutional education; and interviews and appearances on podcasts, radio, and TV about the constitution. The only program elements listed that involve churches and ministries are publishing legal help pamphlets for ministries, assisting ministries in the incorporation process, helping ministries draft bylaws, and defending a single Massachusetts church from “a government taking.”

While all this is respectable work, none of it seems to apply to this article or SAI’s reporting either. To the contrary, our reporting on this matter of public concern and theological issue seems to be protected by the very constitution that KrisAnne teaches.

All this begs the question: Was this cease-and-desist an isolated incident, or is it a more common practice by ARB and/or other similar ministries? So, we asked. According to a source familiar with ARB that wished not to be identified: “I anticipated that [as a potential response from ARB.] It’s their first position.”

This would seem to be consistent with a report from LFL’s 2023 annual recap, which highlighted a couple of examples of “religious liberty protection.” One report celebrated:

“In October of 2023, we were contacted by an evangelist who was facing defamatory remarks from an individual towards their personal character and ministry. With swift action, we were able to ensure that the accusations ceased, allowing that evangelist to freely host services where hundreds of people receive salvation, healing, and are forever changed.”

While the evangelist and ministry were not disclosed, this does show that LFL has engaged in this kind of work before with similar ministries, and that this may be a common practice used by some ministry clients of LFL.

However, it is worth noting that this has been an uncommon response from ministries in our experience. SAI has reached out to 17 ministries regarding this project to date, and only ARB has sent a cease-and-desist. Some ministries have chosen not to comment, while others have engaged in civil dialogue and provided clarifying comments. No other ministries, however, took this course of action.

In my research for this article, nagging questions arose as I listened to Ankit Rambabu’s vision for ARB Ministries.

Ankit shares this in a video on his website.

“People ask me, what is your message? What is your mandate for America? My mandate for America is very simple. It’s to carry the fire of God and to create a hunger in the hearts of the people for the things of God. To lead people to an encounter with the things of heaven. And so that’s what I very strongly believe the mandate of our ministry is…”

This is a fantastic message, but doesn’t the fire of God light the way for truth and honesty among His people? Isn’t truth one of the things of heaven?

Scripture tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, so wouldn’t pursuing and protecting truth and honesty in the Church be a way of pursuing the things of God and honoring God? If so, how do NDAs that could limit a church member’s ability to speak honestly fit into this pursuit of the things of God?

Later in the same video, a man’s voice (presumably Ankit’s) asks:

“Have you seen a man on fire? A man on fire is not worried about the opinions of others. All he knows is I’m on fire, and everyone who comes into contact with me will be set ablaze with that very fire.”

Again, though, that raises questions. If a man on fire is not worried about others’ opinions, why use NDAs? Also, why the inflamed and aggressive legal response to a brother in Christ asking questions about this? If you believe the practice is God honoring as a man on fire, then why respond in such a way to the opinions and questions of another?

As someone who had very minor contact with Ankit and ARB for this story, I wasn’t set ablaze by the fire he described. Instead, the only heat felt was that of legal threats and attempts to silence this article.

As a fellow Christian, the Holy Spirit inside of me did not recognize the fruit of those actions.

The video finishes with Ankit declaring, “I say to God, I will not look like the world. I will not sound like the world. I will not act like the world. But God, I want to carry your fire!”

How does this impact the use of NDAs in ministry? NDAs were originally used in the tech industry in the 1980s to protect trade secrets and proprietary business information. It was a legal tool used by businesses in the world. NDAs came into the church space primarily as a practice adopted from the corporate world.

So, wouldn’t NDA use be a way of looking, sounding, and acting like the world? Is using such documents the best way to carry the fire of God to a world that needs Him?

Finally, in a video to pastors on the festival of miracles website, Ankit tells pastors, “I love you, and I would love to hear from you.” Does that invitation not extend to this pastor? Instead of feeling love from Ankit and that he wanted to hear from this brother in Christ, the cease and desist gave the impression that a conversation was unwanted.

In the same video, Ankit shares that “If we touch America, we touch the whole world. And my heart has been burning with a passion to see revival in this great nation.”

I couldn’t agree more. Personally, I want these things too. I am grateful for all Christian ministries that impact our nation and bring revival. The stakes are high, and that’s why we care so deeply about ministry practices like NDA use.

So, are we against ARB Ministries? Not at all. We are for them and ministries everywhere who share the gospel. We also want the church and Christian ministries to be safe, life-giving, and above reproach as the scriptures teach. So, we hold the tension of both loving Ankit Rambabu and wanting the best for his ministry, and the willingness to engage in public transparency conversations around ministry NDA use.

We can hold both. And we choose to do so in the love of Christ.

Our goal is not to accuse, shame, or blacklist any ministry, but to empower individuals and organizations to make informed decisions about their faith communities. By documenting the reported use of silencing NDAs, we aim to foster open dialogue and greater accountability throughout all spiritual spaces.

If you represent Ankit Rambabu Ministries and wish to provide additional context, request a correction, or pursue removal from the database, please see our Removal and Correction Policy or contact us here.

Learn more about the NDA Disclosure Database here:

-              See the Database

-              NDA Disclosure & Publishing Process

-              Data Protection Policy

Last updated: 10/30/25