Reports from the UOC Metropolitan Kiev-Pechersk Lavra deputy Pavel Lebed indicate that on April 1 he received a notification from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) warning that his residence might be subjected to a search. The matter was shared by Strana.ua, a Ukrainian Telegram outlet, which also published a video showing Pavel describing the encounter.
The deputy faces accusations of collaborating with Russia and provoking religious hatred. He asserts that he did not curse anyone and that he denies any wrongdoing under the charge. In his remarks, he emphasized a biblical sentiment, saying that tears would not fall to the ground but would land on the heads of those responsible for the upheaval.
In one frame of the footage, he is seen signing a document with a backdrop that appears to include SBU officers. The timing of the incident aligns with a March 30 event when Metropolitan Pavel claimed to have raised concerns with the SBU on his own behalf, though he did not specify the reason for the contact in that moment.
The incident occurred amid a broader dispute surrounding the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The Ukrainian Ministry of Culture had announced the unilateral termination of the monastery’s lease, prompting the monks to evacuate on March 29. Culture Minister Oleksandr Tkachenko suggested that the monks could remain at the Lavra only if they transferred to the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church (OCU).
Observers note that the clash involves competing ecclesiastical jurisdictions and questions about the control and use of sacred spaces in Ukraine. The situation underscores ongoing tensions between the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and alternative alignments, and it has drawn attention from religious and political circles alike. While officials have framed actions around regulatory and symbolic issues, church leaders emphasize continuity of worship and the protection of the monastic heritage housed within the Lavra complex.
As the narrative unfolds, supporters argue that the measures reflect broader governance decisions affecting religious institutions and their leadership. Critics, however, warn against conflating political power with spiritual authority, urging a careful examination of due process and the rights of monastic communities to carry out their religious duties without intimidation. The case remains a focal point for discussions on religious liberty, state oversight, and the preservation of historic religious sites in Ukraine.
In this tense environment, monthly statements from the involved parties tend to reiterate different interpretations of events, with each side highlighting aspects that support their position. The sovereign authority overseeing cultural heritage and the church authorities involved are expected to continue dialogues aimed at resolving the immediate lease-related concerns while addressing the longer-term goals for the Lavra under Ukraine’s evolving ecclesiastical landscape.