Firstly, far from it being a ‘a powerful ancient concept ‘ as you state, the doctrine of karma has historical origins which are rooted in the politics of Indian society, and in particular its abhorrent caste system.

‘Karma… was utilised by the wealthy Brahmanic class to oppress lower castes in claiming it was their birthright to be poor and uneducated’.
(bigthink.com)

Thus, although Shalina accepts karma I think she is correct to imply that the doctrine is used ‘to instill fear in people through religion…to lead a virtuous life’

Karma may indeed entail ‘multiple lifetimes’ as you point out and it is indeed bound up with the belief in reincarnation:
‘…as the early Aryan religion evolved into Hinduism, Paradise for the privileged became replaced by an altogether more original concept. This was reincarnation. Reincarnation was accompanied by a new, equally original moral system, ‘karma’. Reincarnation and karma evolved in time.’(M Kneale p42).

And while there may indeed be some merit in karma acting as a brake against misbehavior it also treats intolerantly any form of charitable thinking. As James Webster writes in The Case Against Reincarnation:
 
‘Reincarnation paralyses the initiative of millions. Those imprisoned by it rarely strive for social improvements or justice, for that would then deprive people of their karma a… grotesque philosophy which ignores the matchstick legs and distended bellies of starving children…’

A bitch indeed! Even Mahatma Ghandi, a devout Hindu, called karma and reincarnation ‘a burden too great to bear.’

Many people in the West who believe in reincarnation do so because of authors like Ian Stevenson who wrote about children’s apparently detailed memories of past lives. However, in his book, Reincarnation Refuted, Stephen Blake shows that even Stevenson’s most convincing case -that of Jasbir- can be better explained by means other than reincarnation. (the man who is supposed to have been reincarnated in Jasbir’s body actually died when Jasbir was three and a half years old! Blake believes, rather, that it is spirit obsession/possession that transfers the memories of a “former life”.)

Secondly, you simply cannot refer to the Law of Karma in the way that you refer to the Law of Gravity. If Mother Teresa was sitting next to Ted Bundy on a jet plane and the engines failed, Gravity would bring both of them crashing to earth indiscriminately. But Karma purports to be a moral law, which means that there must be an intelligence behind it, watching us and scrutinizing our behavior. But what is this intelligence, by whose standards does it judge us and who judges it in turn? Also, morals can change with time. Owning slaves was morally quite acceptable in the past, while, conversely, homosexuality was regarded as immoral.

Thirdly, and crucially for women, in the original Hindu teachings a woman is required first to be reborn as a man to have any hope of achieving salvation (moksha) from the relentless wheel of karma and rebirth.

I realize it is your livelihood, Chiara, but surely you can offer healing and other counselling without resorting to a belief system that is at best severe and unforgiving, at worst downright sexist and inhumane.

Ron