For sure, I've written about my views overall in various articles. The most obvious I consider revolve around racial issues or people who simply lack additional resources - whether that's financially or otherwise.

For example, going to the gym 4 to 5 times a week is reasonable, but for those who lack a car, a one-hour workout might actually cost them nearly two if they're biking or walking to the gym. This could be problematic for people who are more sensitive for time.

Also note that for those who lack a car to get to places, they have to rely on bus systems which take up even more time - especially when they are not robust at all. What should take an hour to do takes two or three hours depending on what people have to do.

In my town, if you live on one end of town and work on the opposite, using an e-bike is significantly faster than the current bus system. But then you have to shell out nearly $2K to get a decent e-bike.

Also these issues can compound if you work multiple jobs. And doing extra things can get shaky if you happen to have a car, but it's an old and used one that can break down.

The idea is that it's not the guru's fault entirely to solve these issues, but there should be some consideration for those things. For example, a rich self-help guru could be offering those $3,000 seminars for much cheaper. Maybe they could do a special for coaching or offer some free trial sessions. These alleviate some of the pressure of saving up and in some cases can address a particular issue in the industry of "even though this guru is hyped up, what if they're not the right fit for me?" A trial period spends time, but it hurts more if you spent months saving up thousands only to realize the person isn't for you. A guru on stage or in videos can give you the personality of the person, but a one-on-one is very different.