Lisa voldeng
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is a prominent Substack creator and founder of Ultra-Agent Industries who publishes newsletters such as Outlaws of Chivalry and Ultra-Future and operates a personal website promoting creative and brand projects [1] [2] [3]. She became widely visible in 2025 after her Substack account published or “leaked” audio attributed to a man named Sascha (Sasha) Riley, material that multiple news outlets describe as unverified and circulating on social media [4] [5] [6].
1. Who she is: creator, publisher, and corporate brand
Voldeng presents herself as a media entrepreneur: she runs Substack publications (Outlaws of Chivalry and Ultra-Future) and promotes Ultra-Agent Industries and related creative brands on her website and Substack pages, describing herself in promotional copy as a founder/CEO and media thinker [1] [2] [7] [3].
2. Public profile and contact traces
Her Substack profile and publication pages identify her as an active, rising creator on the platform and display a public persona—“eternal. almighty. loves icecream and integrity”—while her website lists portfolio content and brand ventures, and third‑party directories offer contact and location traces linking her to Vancouver Island or San Francisco addresses in public records and people‑search listings [8] [3] [5] [9] [10].
3. The Sasha Riley audio: what she published and how media reported it
Multiple outlets report that audio attributed to Sascha Riley was posted via Voldeng’s Substack, and that the recordings allege extreme abuse tied to the Jeffrey Epstein network; mainstream reporting emphasizes the material is circulating widely but remains unverified by courts or independent investigators [4] [5] [6]. Times Now and other summaries note that the claims are currently unconfirmed and that the provenance of the tapes and how Voldeng obtained them are subjects of active question [4] [5].
4. Credibility signals and limits in the public record
Voldeng’s public footprint shows active publishing and an entrepreneurial brand, but the available reporting repeatedly flags the Riley material as unverified and notes no public court records or mainstream law‑enforcement confirmation tied to the audio as reported to date; outlets interviewed her post and describe efforts to contact authorities and allies described in her posts, but independent corroboration is absent in the sources provided [5] [6] [4].
5. Motives, audiences, and competing interpretations
Her platform and branding suggest a business and cultural‑commentary motive—building readership, influence, and creative IP—and in situations like the Riley audio leak, that positioning can produce both supporters who view her as amplifying alleged survivors and skeptics who warn about the risks of unverified, incendiary material spreading online; media accounts explicitly present both the sensational nature of the allegations and the need for verification, signaling competing public reactions [5] [4].
6. What remains unknown and how reporting frames next steps
The sources make clear key questions remain unanswered by publicly available reporting: whether the audio is authentic, how it was obtained, whether law enforcement has verified its claims, and what legal or ethical obligations Voldeng followed in releasing it; the reporting does not supply independent verification and therefore cannot resolve those questions [4] [5] [6]. Readers should treat the viral material as unverified until corroboration from independent investigators, courts, or credible institutions is documented in follow‑up reporting.