Kunal Nayyar, best known for his role as Raj Koothrappali on the long-running CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory, has revealed a quiet philanthropic practice: anonymously paying the medical bills of strangers through GoFundMe. The actor’s disclosure, initially made in a December 2025 interview with The i Paper, has recently gained traction online, sparking a complex reaction that highlights both generosity and cynicism.
Nayyar, who reportedly earned $1 million per episode at the peak of The Big Bang Theory’s success from 2007 to 2019, described his actions as a “masked vigilante thing.” He explained, “Money has given me greater freedom and the greatest gift is the ability to give back, to change people’s lives.” Beyond medical bills, Nayyar and his wife, former Miss India Neha Kapur, also support animal charities and fund college scholarships for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. He emphasized that wealth doesn’t “weigh heavy” on him, but rather provides opportunities for positive impact.
The actor’s net worth is estimated at $45 million as of early 2026, according to Fortune magazine. His earnings during his time on The Big Bang Theory were substantial. Forbes ranked him as the third-highest-paid television actor in both 2015 ($20 million) and 2018 ($23.5 million).
The timing of the renewed attention to Nayyar’s philanthropy coincides with another high-profile GoFundMe campaign: one launched by friends of the late actor James Van Der Beek to support his wife and six children following his recent death. That campaign quickly raised $2.6 million, demonstrating the power of online fundraising in times of crisis. A statement from Van Der Beek’s friends expressed gratitude for the outpouring of support, noting that it provided “a light in the middle of deep grief.”
However, Nayyar’s revelation hasn’t been met with universal praise. Online reactions, as reported by BuzzFeed and AOL, have been surprisingly bleak, with some criticizing him for publicizing his charitable acts. Comments ranged from assertions that “charity must be done without another person knowing” to suggestions that he “should’ve kept it a secret.” This backlash underscores a tension between the genuine desire to help others and the perceived impropriety of seeking recognition for doing so.
The negative response raises questions about societal expectations surrounding philanthropy. While many applaud charitable giving, there’s a clear discomfort with those who openly discuss their donations, even when done anonymously through platforms like GoFundMe. The criticism suggests a belief that the act of giving should be purely altruistic, untainted by any potential for self-promotion or public image enhancement. It also speaks to a broader skepticism about the motivations of the wealthy and a tendency to question their sincerity.
Nayyar’s case is particularly interesting because he isn’t simply writing checks to established charities. He’s actively seeking out individuals in need on GoFundMe, directly intervening in their personal financial struggles. This hands-on approach, while admirable to some, may also contribute to the perception that he’s seeking a degree of control or validation. His description of it as a “masked vigilante thing!”—while intended to be lighthearted—may have inadvertently fueled the criticism.
The situation also highlights the increasing reliance on crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe to address healthcare costs and other financial emergencies. While these platforms can provide a lifeline for individuals and families facing hardship, they also expose the systemic failures that necessitate such fundraising efforts in the first place. The Van Der Beek campaign, for example, underscores the financial vulnerabilities even those with established careers can face when confronted with serious illness.
Kunal Nayyar’s story is a complex one. It’s a testament to the power of wealth to effect positive change, but also a reminder of the often-uncomfortable relationship between philanthropy, public perception, and the underlying societal issues that drive the need for charitable giving. The online reaction serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of navigating generosity in the age of social media, where even well-intentioned acts can be met with scrutiny and skepticism.
