‘Don't waste money...’: AIIMS doctor calls Deepinder Goyal’s ‘Temple’ device a ‘fancy toy’

A recent podcast appearance by Zomato founder and CEO Deepinder Goyal has reignited debate around his much-discussed “Temple” device and the broader “Gravity Aging Hypothesis” he floated late last year. Images of Goyal wearing the small golden gadget near his temple have once again gone viral on social media — but this time, the sharpest criticism has come from a doctor and AI researcher at AIIMS Delhi, who has dismissed the device as lacking any scientific credibility.  

Dr Suvrankar Datta, a radiologist with clinical training from AIIMS Delhi and a researcher in India in Arterial Stiffness and Pulse Wave Velocity (2017) which predicts cardiovascular mortality, publicly questioned both the device and the theory behind it. Responding to a picture of Goyal wearing the Temple device, Dr Datta described it as having “zero scientific standing” in its current form.

“As a physician-scientist and one of the earliest researchers in India in arterial stiffness and pulse wave velocity (2017), which predicts cardiovascular mortality, I can assure you that this device currently has 0 scientific standing as a useful device,” Dr Datta wrote on X (formally twitter).

The AIIMS doctor went further, advising people not to spend money on what he termed “fancy toys” marketed without solid scientific backing. “Do not waste your hard-earned money to buy fancy toys billionaires can afford to waste money on. If you are one, then go ahead,” he said.

Scientific standards vs experimental claims  

At the heart of Dr Datta’s criticism is the method the Temple device claims to use to assess brain blood flow. According to him, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) is the only scientifically validated marker that reliably predicts cardiovascular mortality. Any alternative approach, he argued, must be rigorously tested against this gold standard.

“And you cannot just use the temporal artery as a surrogate because they aren’t reflective and have many confounding factors,” Dr Datta said, explaining that arteries near the temple are not reliable indicators of overall cardiovascular or cerebral blood flow. Using them as a shortcut, he added, is scientifically flawed and prone to inaccurate conclusions.

In follow-up posts, Dr Datta stressed that his criticism was not personal but rooted in evidence-based medicine. Devices that claim to measure complex biological processes, he said, require long-term, peer-reviewed research before they can be considered credible or safe for public use.  

Gravity & ageing: An unproven link

The criticism has also revived scrutiny of Goyal’s “Gravity Aging Hypothesis,” which he shared publicly in November 2025. In that post, Goyal suggested that gravity might gradually reduce blood flow to the brain over a person’s lifetime, and that this reduction could be a contributing factor to ageing.

When asked directly whether this idea has any scientific basis, Dr Datta was unequivocal. “As of now there is no scientific basis,” he replied, cautioning against promoting hypotheses as near-facts before they have been validated through research.

Medical professionals including Dr Cyriac Philips, widely known online as “The Liver Doc,” had earlier raised similar concerns, warning against oversimplified or speculative explanations of ageing that could mislead the public.  

Goyal’s perspective and plans

Goyal has maintained that the Temple device is experimental and part of ongoing personal research. Around the time he shared the gravity hypothesis, photos surfaced of him wearing the device near his right temple. Goyal later confirmed that it was designed to measure brain blood flow and said he had been using it himself for about a year.

In December 2025, he hinted that the device would soon be made available to the public, fuelling both curiosity and scepticism. Supporters have praised Goyal for exploring unconventional ideas, while critics argue that public figures must be especially careful when discussing unproven health technologies.

The renewed controversy highlights a larger tension between tech-driven experimentation and established medical science. While innovation often begins with bold hypotheses, doctors caution that health-related claims demand a higher bar of evidence — particularly when devices are marketed to consumers.