SRProject Sun RockOpen letter · Lourdes / MYND

OPEN LETTER · UPDATED 16 AUGUST 2026

Lourdes Castillejo: who asked to control Sun Park's digital identity?

Your name appears in a documented sequence of requests concerning Sun Park's Google Business Profile during the transition toward MYND. Native-source review now establishes an important point: all three documented requests were rejected. I do not treat it as proved that you personally made the requests carrying your name. That is exactly why I am asking you to help clarify who acted and what happened afterwards.

This letter asks verifiable questions. It is not a finding of guilt.

If you acted under legitimate corporate instructions, explain who instructed you and what title was relied upon. If someone else used your name, say so. Rejection of the requests does not make their submission an offence and does not identify who caused later changes to the profile.

What is documented

28 October 2021Google associates a request with Lourdes Castillejo, role “Business owner”, using mynd.hotels@gmail.com.
Outcome: rejected.
24 February 2022Google again shows Lourdes Castillejo, now as “Employee”, using the same account.
Outcome: rejected.
20 June 2022Google records another request as “MYND Hotels, Employee”, linked to mynd.hotels@gmail.com.
Outcome: rejected.

All three original notices have now been located as direct Google provider messages. That establishes the provider-side association and the outcome of the three requests. It does not yet identify the physical user, the controller of the requester account, the author of instructions, the IP address used or the documents supplied.

There is a caution that we ourselves recorded in February 2022. The possibility was expressly considered that a third party may have used your name without your consent. That possibility should be resolved through evidence, not assumption.

It is also documented that, after the third rejection, Google notified the existing manager that Sun Park was marked closed; a 30 June capture showed the profile as “Permanently closed”, and on 26 August Google said the profile appeared on Maps again after checking its information. I do not attribute that profile-state change to you or to any of the rejected requests.

See the technical Lourdes / MYND dossier →

What I am asking you to clarify

  • Were you the person who submitted or authenticated the October 2021 and February 2022 requests?
  • Who controlled mynd.hotels@gmail.com and who could access it?
  • Which entity were you representing on each date: MYND, Canarian Hospitality, Hotel New Trend, CAM or another entity?
  • Who gave the instructions and what ownership, authorisation, operating or employment documents were used?
  • Given that all three requests were rejected, was any different verification, editing or access route used afterwards?
  • Do you know who or what mechanism caused the profile later to appear as “Permanently closed”?
  • Were historical Sun Park digital assets migrated or reused?
  • If you did not make one or more requests, who used your name?
There is another related incident, but it is separate.

The June 2019 sunpark264@gmail.com episode — a customer email and a Google recovery clue compatible with @acostamatos.com — has its own dossier. The renewed search still has not located the native original of that email with full transport headers. I do not allege that you knew about that episode or that the two incidents had the same author.

Open the 2019 Sun Park incident →

This is no longer only a Google question

The later MYND Yaiza chronology is separately documented across layers involving RICPE investment and RIC, regional incentives and FEDER. Those layers must remain legally distinct.

The Lourdes / MYND incident matters as a question of provenance and due diligence: what asset and commercial platform were being represented, who could represent continuity to customers, what title existed and what information later reached investors, managers, financiers or public authorities. Neither a Google request nor its rejection proves that later funding or incentives were improper.

If you know the chain, you can help clarify it

I am not asking you to adopt our interpretation. I am asking for precision: what you did, what you were asked to do, what you were told, what you knew, what you did not know and what records can verify it.

If you hold relevant information, use a lawful and competent route.

Spain's Law 2/2023 protects, within its requirements and limits, certain people who report specified infringements learned in a work or professional context and prohibits retaliation in the circumstances provided by law.

I am not asking you to steal documents, enter systems without authorisation, unlawfully copy databases or give me company secrets. Preserve intact any originals you already lawfully possess, do not alter metadata and seek independent advice if needed.

Law 2/2023 in the Spanish Official Gazette ↗

Right of reply

If there is an error of identity, role, attribution or context, we want to correct it. If there was a legitimate authorisation we have not seen, we want to reflect it. If your identity was used by a third party, that would be especially important.

Gil Marer
Project Sun Rock / Por Derecho · publication subject to documentary correction and right of reply

Editorial control: this letter is limited to the Lourdes / MYND incident and links, without merging it, to the separate 2019 digital incident. The three rejections and the later closed state are documented platform facts; they do not establish authorship, causation or individual responsibility.