The case

Ana Morales is 42, a parent of two, and a long-trusted volunteer in children’s ministry. On Tuesday evening she receives a message from an unknown account containing an explicit video that appears to show her. The face, voice, and setting are convincing. The sender demands $6,000 in cryptocurrency and threatens to send the file to the parish directory, her employer, and her teenage daughter unless she pays within twelve hours.

Ana recognizes that the body and event are fabricated, but the video appears to use images from public church livestreams and personal social-media posts. The sender includes screenshots of names and email addresses from a recent ministry spreadsheet, making the threat feel credible. Ana has replied twice, first insisting the video is fake and then asking for more time. She has not sent money. She has begun deleting social accounts and messages because she wants every trace of the incident gone.

By the time she calls you, Ana has not slept or eaten. She is shaking, nauseated, and repeatedly says she has “ruined everything,” even though she knows intellectually that she did not make the video. She fears the congregation will treat explanation as excuse. She is especially afraid that parents will no longer trust her around children. Her spouse knows only that she received a threatening message; Ana cannot bring herself to show the video or describe it aloud.

Ana comes to the church because it feels safer than a police station. She asks you to promise that no one else will see the file and to decide whether she should pay. While you are speaking, a second message arrives: the sender claims the deadline has moved up and attaches an image of Ana’s daughter leaving school. You do not know whether the photograph is current, copied, or fabricated. The church also has questions to face: how did the sender obtain the ministry contact list, who must be notified, and how can leaders protect Ana without turning the crisis into gossip or an improvised investigation?

What is known—and what is not

Known so far

• Ana is the target of sexualized deepfake extortion and is experiencing acute fear, shame, and physical distress.

• The sender appears to possess or imitate personal and church-related information.

• Ana has engaged the sender and begun deleting possible evidence.

• A reference to her daughter raises concern about stalking or a threat beyond reputational harm.

• The church may have a data-security and organizational-response responsibility.

Still uncertain

• Whether Ana or her daughter faces an immediate physical threat.

• Whether the video or contact list has already been distributed.

• How the sender obtained the data and whether other people are being targeted.

• What reporting, evidence-preservation, legal, insurance, safeguarding, or employment steps apply locally.

• What Ana wants shared, with whom, and how to protect her agency while fulfilling mandatory duties.

Pastoral response questions

Pause before solving. Imagine that you are the leader receiving this person or community. What do you notice, what do you need to learn, and what is the next faithful step?

Begin with the person

1. What would you say in the first two minutes to counter shame without making promises you cannot keep?

2. How can you avoid asking Ana to prove the fabrication or repeatedly expose herself to the material?

3. What practical conditions—privacy, food, water, a trusted support person—would help stabilize the encounter?

Assess safety and urgency

1. What questions would help determine whether Ana or her daughter is in immediate danger?

2. How would you assess panic, dissociation, self-harm risk, and the ability to make decisions?

3. Who needs to be contacted now, and how will you stay with Ana while that happens?

Look beneath—and notice the AI context

1. Which harms are already present even if nobody else has seen the video?

2. What is distinct about synthetic sexual content: plausibility, scale, uncertainty, repeated exposure, and the burden of disproving it?

3. Who else may need care, and how do you prevent their needs from eclipsing Ana’s?

Discern the next faithful step

1. What belongs to pastoral presence, and what belongs to law enforcement, legal counsel, victim services, school safety, cybersecurity, or church administration?

2. How can evidence be preserved and unnecessary viewing minimized without you becoming the investigator?

3. What should the church communicate—or deliberately not communicate—before facts and duties are clearer?

Plan follow-up

1. What should the care plan include after the immediate threat is addressed?

2. How might shame, worship attendance, family relationships, work, and trust in the congregation be affected over time?

3. What institutional review should occur regarding directories, livestreams, volunteer data, response protocols, and confidentiality?

Designing a tool for when you are stuck

Use these final questions to test what a practical pastoral field guide would need to provide.

1. What must an acute-response tool place before technical investigation?

2. How can the guide protect dignity, agency, evidence, and safety at the same time?

3. What handoff language helps a pastor coordinate help without abandoning the person?

Developed from the AI Pastoral Toolkit Design Sprint case corpus and Day One Synthesis and Design Charge (July 2026).