Parvathy Krishna, who has built a massive following around her face yoga classes, is suddenly at the centre of a heated controversy.

Her viral videos, promising sharper jawlines and transformed facial structures through simple facial exercises, are now being torn apart online, with critics calling them everything from misleading to outright pseudoscience.

The loudest voice in this growing backlash? YouTuber Chandrasekhar Ramesh of the ‘Lucy Malayalam’ channel.

In a sharply worded critique, he accuses Parvathy of dressing up unproven claims in scientific jargon to win over audiences. His argument is blunt: this isn’t a difference of opinion, it’s a clash between evidence and illusion.

Parvathy, however, isn’t backing down. Initially, she responded to the criticism, saying she respects differing viewpoints.

Later, she also shared a cryptic Instagram post, posting a video of dogs barking, accompanied by the remark, “Let those who bark, keep barking.”

The post is widely seen as a veiled dig at critics amid the ongoing controversy over her claims.

Not to say that these responses have only added fuel to the fire, with Chandrasekhar doubling down, insisting that facts, not opinions, should lead the conversation.

Meanwhile, Parvathy’s claims continue to draw attention. She maintains that face yoga can reshape facial features, even sculpt a defined jawline, and points to her own transformation as proof.

With millions of views on her videos and thousands of followers enrolled in her classes, her influence is undeniable.

However, critics aren’t convinced. They argue that facial muscle movements simply cannot alter bone structure or deliver the dramatic results being promised.

More importantly, they stress that face yoga has no established scientific backing and no real link to traditional yoga practices.

Despite the mounting criticism, Parvathy stands firm, claiming that thousands she has trained have seen real results.

Skeptics, however, dismiss these as anecdotal at best and caution viewers against buying into what they describe as scientifically unsupported claims.

What remains now is a sharply divided audience: believers swearing by visible results, and critics warning of a well-packaged illusion.