I opened it expecting the usual — some complaint about data privacy, perhaps a grievance about online surveillance. What I found instead was a 20-page dossier claiming that Sumeet's next-door neighbours have been hacking his brain!
How It Begins
Sumeet describes himself as a victim of "neuroweapon (Brain Hacking)" and a "cyber human rights volunteer." His covering letter is measured, even bureaucratic in tone. He writes about "converging domains" of neurotechnology, space technology, and biological data systems. He invokes "cognitive liberty" and "open-source intelligence." He says he has spent considerable time researching these issues and has compiled supporting material including scientific studies, academic literature, and media reports.
Attached to this letter is what he calls his evidence — around 40 article screenshots, patent tables, news clippings, and document excerpts, plus a Google Drive link reportedly containing over 500 further articles on "neuro weapons."
He has, I learn from reading the documents included in the packet, already filed complaints with the Chandigarh Police in October 2023 and the Central Bureau of Investigation in June 2025. Both letters name the same neighbours — residents of adjacent houses in his sector — as the perpetrators. He alleges they planted spy cameras and audio bugs in his home when he was away in Amritsar in December 2019, hired a private investigator and hacker from January 2021, and in June 2022 obtained a device capable of "Remote Neural Monitoring" — a technology he says can decode thoughts, sub-vocalisations, and memories by intercepting brain waves, all without any physical connection to the target.
By the time of the CBI letter, the alleged operation has expanded. He writes that "almost 8-9 people wearing EEG/VR headsets" are simultaneously accessing his brain, communicating via microwaves and conducting "mind interrogation" on him around the clock.
I want to be honest about my reaction as a layman reading all of this: part of me felt the instinct to close the file immediately. But I thought that would be too easy, and potentially unfair. So I went through it properly, page by page.
The Science He Cites — and What It Actually Says
The first thing I noticed is that Sumeet has clearly done a lot of reading. The dossier contains references to real scientific concepts: EEG (electroencephalography), Brain-Computer Interfaces, fMRI scanning, directed energy research. There are screenshots of what appear to be genuine academic or government sources alongside the more sensational material.
The most credible item is a 2008 BBC report about scientists using fMRI machines to partially reconstruct images that volunteers were watching on a screen. This is real research. It happened. Scientists recorded brain activity patterns while people watched video clips and then used those patterns to generate rough approximations of what the volunteers had seen. It was genuinely remarkable.
But here is what that research involved: large hospital-grade fMRI machines that subjects lay inside, extensive calibration sessions for each individual, and laboratory conditions producing results that were crude pattern matches — blurry, approximate reconstructions, not clear thought-reading. There is no version of this that translates to a neighbour deploying the same capability wirelessly, through walls, on an unsuspecting person sitting in his own home, 24 hours a day.
Sumeet also reproduces a table of US patents for directed energy and electromagnetic technologies, alongside a diagram of something labelled an "RNM System." Patents for various electromagnetic and audio technologies do exist — including research into the microwave auditory effect, a documented phenomenon where pulsed microwaves can create the sensation of sound in a person's head. This too is real, studied, and concerning from a weapons-development perspective. But these are technologies that require enormous infrastructure, proximity, and precision. They are not available on the civilian market. They are not something a residential neighbour could acquire and deploy from the house next door.
The Sources That Gave Me Concern
Then there is the other half of the dossier, and this is where I had to be careful about how I was reading things.
Alongside the legitimate science, Sumeet cites Infowars — the American conspiracy website whose founder was found by US courts to have spread dangerous lies about the Sandy Hook school shooting. He cites the Activist Post, a fringe aggregator. He includes excerpts from a 1992 self-published book called Matrix III that links mind control technology to the Bavarian Illuminati. There is a document attributed to someone called "Nicole Erica Aine" titled "Report on Neocortical Terrorism," which combines DNA antenna theory with Illuminati history. There is a translated interview with a man claiming to have worked for the CIA, Mossad, and British intelligence simultaneously, published on an IndyMedia page with no verifiable origin.
None of these are scientific sources. None would pass any editorial standard I know of.
The News Reports He Uses as Proof
This is the part I found most striking. Several of Sumeet's "articles" are news reports about other people making claims identical to his — a Pune IT professional who told police his brain was being hacked via satellite, a Delhi man who alleged CIA mind monitoring, a Karnataka man caught trying to enter the NSA's residence claiming his mind was being controlled by Chinese technology.
Sumeet presents these as corroboration: see, others are experiencing the same thing.
But read carefully, every single one of these cases ended the same way. Police registered a complaint and nothing followed. The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition about brain control machines. These are not validations of the technology's existence. They are records of similar complaints being made and rejected.
The One Thing That Should Not Be Dismissed
Here is where I want to be careful, because I think there is something legitimate buried inside all of this.
The question of how neurotechnology will be regulated is a real and urgent one. Brain-computer interface devices are becoming cheaper. BCI headsets are being marketed commercially. Researchers can already extract some information from brain signals under controlled conditions. India has no specific legislation covering neurotechnology or cognitive privacy. These are genuine gaps, and the people raising them — researchers, ethicists, policy advocates — are doing important work.
Similarly, the Havana Syndrome — the mysterious neurological symptoms claimed by US and Canadian diplomats in Cuba and elsewhere — is a documented, but unresolved phenomenon that has led some to investigate whether directed microwave energy was involved. Ironically, it is actively debated even in peer-reviewed journals and government reports.
These things are surely worth writing about. But it doesn't seem to support the specific claim that a Chandigarh resident's neighbours are conducting remote brain monitoring from adjacent houses.
What I Think Is Actually Happening
I am not a doctor and I am not in a position to diagnose anyone. But I can describe what I observed as a layman reading through these documents.
The complaint began in 2023 with three named neighbours allegedly implanting bugs. By 2025 it had expanded to 8-9 perpetrators operating satellite-linked EEG headsets around the clock. The dossier draws on a globally circulated set of documents, YouTube-style diagrams, and fringe publications that I was able to find referenced identically in similar complaints filed in the US, UK, Spain, Bangladesh, and China. There is a name for this community — researchers call them "Targeted Individuals" — and it is a globally networked belief system, partly online-driven, in which people share and cross-validate experiences of being persecuted through invisible technology.
Some people in this community may genuinely be experiencing harassment — neighbour disputes, stalking, surveillance of some kind. That is real and should be taken seriously on its own terms. What the evidence does not support is the specific technological mechanism described.
When I read Sumeet's letters — the escalating scope, the carefully compiled dossier, the simultaneous sense of extreme persecution and meticulous organisation — what I felt most strongly was not scepticism. It was concern for him as a person.
Why I Am Writing About This
Because submissions like this one will keep arriving — in inboxes like mine, at police stations, at high courts. And the people who receive them face a genuine dilemma: to dismiss them entirely feels callous, but to publish them uncritically does real harm, both to the person making the claims and to public understanding of what neurotechnology can and cannot actually do.
The responsible position, as I see it, is to take the underlying distress seriously, to engage honestly with the legitimate science, and to be clear — plainly and without condescension — that a dossier of Infowars screenshots and self-published Illuminati texts does not constitute evidence of brain hacking.
If Sumeet reads this: I do not doubt that you are suffering. I hope you find the support you need.
Comments