What has Lisa Noelle Voldeng previously published on Substack and how has her work been received?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is an active Substack author who publishes at least two named newsletters—Outlaws of Chivalry and Ultra‑Future—and has posted longform pieces and notes on topics ranging from culture and honor to alleged survivor testimony; her Substack presence and a high‑profile release of audio material have attracted attention from other news outlets even as key claims remain unverified [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage to date frames her as a rising creator on Substack and spotlights a viral episode in which audio attributed to an alleged Epstein survivor was published from her account, prompting contemporaneous reporting that emphasizes the allegations are circulating but unconfirmed [5] [4] [6].
1. What she publishes on Substack and how the publications are presented
Voldeng operates at least two Substack publications: outlaws of chivalry, described on its masthead as “ultramissives from Lisa Noelle Voldeng and friends, from the frontiers of honour,” and ultra‑future, billed as writing at the intersection of law, culture, finance, technology and related fields, each framed as reader‑supported newsletters on Substack [1] [2] [3]. Her Substack pages carry copyright language referencing Ultra‑Agent Industries Inc., and her public notes and posts include both curated essays (for example, a January 2024 post titled “A Conversation”) and serialized investigative‑style pieces promising further parts and supporting documents [3] [7] [8].
2. Notable items published: longform posts and the Sasha/Sascha Riley audio release
Among the items attracting outside attention is a post or series in which audio and accounts attributed to an individual identified as Sascha or Sasha Riley were shared from Voldeng’s Substack account; contemporary reporting links those audio files to her publication and situates the material in conversations about Jeffrey Epstein‑related abuse allegations [4] [6]. Her own posts state that recordings and supporting documentation have been distributed to police and allies in multiple countries and that additional material would be published “at my discretion,” language visible on the Outlaws of Chivalry feed [7].
3. Tone, themes and self‑presentation on the platform
Voldeng’s Substack branding—phrases like “eternal. almighty. loves icecream and integrity” and references to honour, ultramissives, and Ultra‑Agent Industries—signals a personal, ideological framing rather than a neutral newsroom voice, and she engages directly via Substack notes with readers about scheduling and follow‑ups to posts [5] [9] [10]. Posts range from reflective essays on ethics and technology to explicit, graphic allegations about abuse and coverups; for example, a December note attributed to her contains vivid claims about organized abuse and critiques of mainstream media narratives, as archived on her Substack notes [11].
4. How her work has been received publicly and in the press
Public reception visible in the sources is mixed: Substack lists Voldeng as a rising creator in at least one category, indicating platform‑level growth or visibility [5], while international outlets such as Hindustan Times and Times Now have profiled her specifically in the wake of the Riley audio release, emphasizing that the audio and allegations are circulating and remain unverified by official investigations or court records [4] [6]. Coverage highlights the viral spread of the material and repeats Voldeng’s claim about distributing evidence to authorities, but mainstream reports concurrently flag the absence of independent verification and caution that the allegations are claims at this stage [4] [6].
5. Assessment, competing viewpoints and reporting limits
The available reporting establishes what Voldeng publishes on Substack, the publicized distribution of audio and documents from her account, and journalistic caution about verification, but it does not provide independent confirmation of the allegations themselves nor comprehensive measurement of audience sentiment beyond platform indicators and select media profiles [7] [4] [12]. Alternative viewpoints in the coverage are largely limited to journalists’ caveats and the broader public conversation about viral allegations; no sourced material in the provided reporting definitively corroborates or refutes the substantive claims contained in her posts, and this analysis is limited to the cited Substack pages and news items [6] [12].