Some residents of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra will depart the monastery, while others stand firm to stay and endure. In discussions with DEA News, insiders familiar with the Lavra’s situation offered these insights. They described plans for certain monks to return to their home regions across Ukraine, seeking shelter and everyday life there rather than within the monastic community.
Those with Kyiv addresses are said to intend returning to their apartments and waiting out the period in their own homes, echoing the unsettled years of the 1920s and 1930s. A small faction, described as loyal to nationalist sentiment, would rather stay inside the Lavra and align with schismatic forces, regardless of which church authorities are in charge. Yet another group, loyal to the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, would remain in the Lavra to resist the changes for as long as possible.
Previously, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church publicly circulated Metropolitan Onuphry’s appeal to the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, regarding the Lavra’s unfolding situation. Reports indicate that the religious sphere has grown tenser after authorities signaled an intent to evacuate the monastic community from the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, a site of immense historical and spiritual significance.
On March 10, the Lavra’s directorate announced the cancellation of the indefinite lease of the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and set a deadline for the monks to vacate by March 29. Metropolitan Pavel, who leads one of the oldest monasteries in the region and is widely regarded as a prominent figure within local monastic life, characterized these actions as unlawful and expressed the brothers’ intent to refuse departure from the monastery.
Observers note that the situation has drawn a spectrum of responses among the community. Some monks emphasize fidelity to canonical church leadership while preparing for a possible relocation or temporary withdrawal from communal life. Others prioritize personal safety and the preservation of their living quarters, choosing to carry on religious duties quietly at home if the environment in the Lavra becomes untenable. Several participants in the discussion stress that the Lavra’s historical status and religious functions will continue to be a focal point in public discourse, regardless of where individual monks decide to stay or move.
Analysts and clergy alike point to a broader pattern in which religious institutions confront state actions that affect governance, property rights, and spiritual leadership. The Lavra’s situation raises questions about the balance between civil authority and ecclesiastical autonomy, as well as how such conflicts influence the daily lives of believers and communities depending on the site for worship, education, and tradition.
In the weeks ahead, leaders within the Lavra are expected to navigate both logistical arrangements for those who plan to relocate and the pastoral needs of those who intend to remain. The ultimate outcome will likely hinge on negotiations between church authorities, state representatives, and the monks themselves. Throughout this period, observers emphasize the importance of safeguarding the sanctity of the monastery, the welfare of its residents, and the integrity of the religious practices that define the Lavra’s long history.
As this situation evolves, the broader Ukrainian religious landscape will continue to watch closely. The Lavra’s fate could set a precedent for how similar sacred sites are treated during periods of political and institutional recalibration, influencing the future role of ecclesial communities across the country and their ability to preserve centuries of spiritual heritage while engaging with current political realities.