There Are No Accidents

There Are No Accidents

For the last several days, something has been bothering me.

Food.

More specifically, the amount of perfectly good food I have had to throw away at the end of the night.

Working in catering, there is inevitably waste. You plan for people who don’t show up. You prepare enough because running out isn’t an option. And at the end of service, sometimes you find yourself standing over trays of beautiful food knowing exactly where they’re headed.

The trash.

We’ve worked with charities at Gateway before, and we’ve made efforts to donate what we can, but it has always been hit or miss. Inconsistent. And lately, throwing away good food has started to genuinely wear on me.

Because I know better.

I know there are people not very far from the building where I work who are hungry.

Maybe this bothers me so deeply because somewhere in me, I remember what an empty refrigerator looks like.

When I was a little girl, my parents divorced, and for a while things were hard. I remember opening our refrigerator one day and seeing almost nothing inside. There were condiments—ketchup, mustard—and I think some butter. That was it.

For about six months, my mother had to accept federal assistance to help us get through that time.

I was five years old, and I loved milk. I remember being so excited when I learned that a social worker was going to bring us some. In my five-year-old mind, I knew exactly what milk looked like and exactly what I was waiting for.

Then she arrived with milk in a box.

And I cried.

It’s such a small memory, but I have carried it all these years. A child doesn’t understand federal assistance or divorce or why a refrigerator that once had food in it suddenly doesn’t. A child only understands that she wants milk and that somehow even the milk doesn’t look the way it’s supposed to anymore.

Sometimes I wonder if that’s part of why I became a chef.

Maybe somewhere inside me, I have always needed to feed people. And when I say feed, I mean something much larger than putting food on a plate.

To feed someone is to nourish them.

To provide for them.

To care for them.

There is something inside me that is cared for, too, when I know someone else has been taken care of. Knowing that someone is fed, that for at least this moment they have enough, satisfies some deep need in me that I don’t think I fully understood until now.

Maybe that’s why it is so difficult for me to throw good food away. Maybe it’s why helping people who don’t have enough has never felt abstract to me. I know what it is to be a child who opens a refrigerator and doesn’t find food there.

And I was given an extraordinary gift in the middle of all of that: my grandmother taught me how to cook.

She gave me more than recipes. She taught me what you can do with food. You can take what you have and make something from it. You can put a plate in front of someone and, without saying a word, tell them: I see you. You matter. I want you to be nourished.

Perhaps becoming a chef was never only about loving food.

Perhaps it was always, in some small way, about making sure the refrigerator wasn’t empty.

And tonight, the universe did something interesting.

One of our runners came up to me.

“Are you the catering manager?”

I told him I was.

He hesitated.

Then he asked if I would ever be interested in donating our leftover food.

He works with an organization called All Hands On Deck: STL, an all-volunteer nonprofit whose philosophy can be summed up in one word:

S.H.A.R.E.

Share Health And Resources Equitably.

They rescue food that might otherwise be discarded and redistribute it through free grocery shares and pop-ups throughout St. Louis, particularly in communities where access to nutritious food and other resources can be difficult. Their work extends beyond food, too—connecting people with resources, supporting community health and working toward stronger, more sustainable neighborhoods.

As he was telling me all of this, I could hardly believe the timing.

“Yes,” I said.

Absolutely yes.

And suddenly the food I had been worrying about throwing away wasn’t going into the trash.

It was going to people.

The Question He Almost Didn’t Ask

He stayed late tonight to help me pack everything.

And he was grateful.

But so was I.

Maybe even more so.

Because somewhere along the way, while we were packing containers and standing around the kitchen after everyone else had gone, the conversation stopped being about food.

We started talking about spirituality.

About the natural world.

About what God actually is.

About what happens when human beings take something sacred and build institutions around it.

We talked about Robin Wall Kimmerer and Braiding Sweetgrass, a book we both dearly love—a book that, in many ways, is about reciprocity. About understanding that our relationship with the earth, and ultimately with one another, was never meant to be transactional.

We are supposed to receive.

And we are supposed to give back.

At some point, I asked him about his tattoo. Then I showed him mine—Om Mani Padme Hum, the mantra of compassion, rising out of a lotus. He showed me his in return: a lotus, too, but with the sword of knowledge rising from its center.

There was something quietly beautiful about that exchange, two lotuses carrying two different ideas that were not really so different at all—compassion and wisdom, the heart and the knowing.

He also had the Lakota words Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ—“all my relations”—an acknowledgment that the boundaries we draw between ourselves and the rest of the living world are not as absolute as we pretend: people, animals, plants, trees, earth.

All related.

All belonging to one another in some way.

And maybe that was why the conversation felt so familiar to me.

I had been telling him what I have come to believe—that while we are here, we are supposed to help. To ease suffering when we can. To stand beside those who cannot stand entirely on their own.

Christianity calls us to care for the least among us; Buddhism asks us to cultivate compassion for all sentient beings. And there we were, talking about these things while carrying pieces of the same philosophy permanently on our skin.

Different traditions, different symbols, different roads perhaps—but beneath them, the same quiet recognition: none of us is here alone.

At some point in the conversation, he said something so simple that I knew immediately I was going to borrow it:

“I get Jesus. I don’t get the church.”

Exactly.

There is something profound in separating the sacred from the structures we’ve constructed around it.

Maybe God is much bigger than religion.

Maybe God is generosity.

Maybe God is reciprocity.

Maybe God is the instinct that tells us food should feed someone instead of filling a dumpster.

Maybe God is the little voice that tells a man to ask a question he almost didn’t ask.

There Are No Accidents

Before he left, he invited me to join the Native Women’s Care Circle for a water blessing along the Mississippi River next Sunday.

I’m going.

Afterward, I learned that this wasn’t simply a small local gathering. The Native Women’s Care Circle is a grassroots, matriarchal, Indigenous-led prayer group devoted to the health and welfare of Native families and communities and to stewardship of the land and water.

The St. Louis circle is part of a much larger tradition of weekly prayer along the Mississippi inspired by the Nibi Water Walks.

Years ago, Ojibwe elder Sharon Day called upon people along the river—from its beginnings in Minnesota toward its journey south—to gather on Sunday mornings and continue praying for the healing of the water.

Here near St. Louis, Native women have been gathering along the Mississippi for years to do exactly that.

I asked Terry what time I should be there. He explained the timing to me as “Indian time.”

“Whatever time you get there, but around 9:00 AM.”

I loved that immediately.

He also began explaining what I will experience. You don’t simply walk down to the Mississippi and take water from it. You approach the water as something living and sacred. You ask permission to receive some of it.

A small amount is gathered into a vessel—traditionally, copper vessels are used in the Nibi water-walking tradition—and the water is held in prayer before ultimately being returned to the river.

There is something about that that already moves me deeply: you ask the water.

Not because the water belongs to us, but because we belong to a world made possible by it.

There is another Indigenous teaching Terry shared with me that I keep thinking about: water has memory. I don’t mean that as a scientific claim, but in the spiritual sense in which water is understood as more than an inert resource.

In Ojibwe teachings, nibi—water—is regarded as a sacred, living and moving being, something that carries stories and connection. In the Nibi Water Walk tradition, water gathered at the beginning of a journey is carried in a copper vessel and ultimately returned downstream, in part as a way of reminding the river of its original state.

I find that idea extraordinarily beautiful. The Mississippi flowing past St. Louis has already traveled through countless places and lives before it reaches us, carrying the story of the land with it.

And long after it passes us, it keeps going. If water carries memory, then standing beside the river in prayer feels less like speaking to an object and more like entering an ancient conversation already in progress.

We spend so much of our lives taking from the earth without asking anything. We turn on faucets. We divert rivers. We consume and discard. We behave as though nature is a collection of resources placed here for our convenience.

And here is a ceremony that begins with an entirely different premise.

Ask first.

Very Robin Wall Kimmerer.

Receive with gratitude.

Offer something back.

I’m so looking forward to standing beside the Mississippi next Sunday and participating in that prayer.

And as I drove home tonight, I kept thinking about how strangely these things happen.

For days, throwing away food had been bothering me.

Not intellectually.

It was bothering my heart.

I wanted another answer. I just didn’t know what that answer was yet.

And then someone walked into my dining room.

Someone I might otherwise have known only as one of the runners working in the building.

He asked me a question.

And he told me later that he almost didn’t.

That part stays with me.

Because how many moments in our lives hinge on something that small?

A question we almost didn’t ask.

A phone call we almost didn’t make.

A person we almost didn’t introduce ourselves to.

A door we almost didn’t walk through.

We tend to imagine that the important moments of our lives will announce themselves. That there will be some unmistakable sign telling us, Pay attention. This matters.

Usually there isn’t.

Usually it’s just someone standing in a dining room saying:

“Are you the catering manager?”

Tomorrow Morning

Tomorrow morning at 11:30, All Hands On Deck will hold a pop-up in the city.

And tonight, instead of throwing away perfectly good food, we packed it.

Tomorrow someone will pick it up.

Someone will bring it home.

Someone will eat it.

Maybe someone will feed their children with it.

Food that was headed for a dumpster will instead become nourishment.

And hopefully this isn’t a one-time donation.

We exchanged information. We talked about what we could do going forward. And for the first time since this started bothering me, I feel like there may finally be a relationship that allows us to consistently move surplus food out of our kitchen and into the hands of people who can use it.

That alone would have made tonight extraordinary.

But I think I received something else, too.

I met a kind soul.

I had one of those unexpected conversations that reminds me there are still people wandering around this world asking the same questions I am—about spirituality, purpose, nature, service and what we’re supposed to be doing with the short amount of time we’re given here.

Perhaps that’s why tonight doesn’t feel accidental.

I don’t know exactly what I believe about the invisible forces moving through this world. I’ve become increasingly comfortable admitting that I don’t need to know.

But I believe in paying attention.

I believe in synchronicity.

I believe there are moments when something we’ve been carrying quietly meets an answer coming toward us from a direction we never thought to look.

And I believe sometimes grace is much less dramatic than we’ve been taught to expect.

Sometimes grace doesn’t part the sea.

Sometimes it doesn’t arrive accompanied by thunder or revelation.

Sometimes grace is a man who almost doesn’t ask a question.

Sometimes it’s two people talking about God in an empty dining room.

Sometimes it’s an invitation to sit beside water.

And sometimes it’s simply taking something that would have been thrown away and putting it into the hands of someone who needs it.

Maybe there are accidents in the universe.

But tonight didn’t feel like one.

Like Water for Chocolate: When Fire Finds Its Home

Like Water for Chocolate: When Fire Finds Its Home

Chocolate for Chocolate

I turned to Like Water for Chocolate after watching Chocolat.

Chocolate for chocolate.

The pairing wasn’t nostalgic; it was intuitive. The same substance appeared in two different worlds, doing two very different kinds of work.

Chocolate as a carrier of desire.

Chocolate as a revealer of appetite.

Chocolate as heat—sometimes held, sometimes allowed to run unchecked.

What differs between the two stories is not the intensity of feeling, but the container around it.

One asks what happens when desire is forbidden until it combusts.

The other asks what happens when desire is welcomed early enough to be held.

Only one survives.

Like Water for Chocolate: Desire Without Shelter

Based on the 1989 novel by Laura Esquivel, Like Water for Chocolate is a landmark work of magical realism—a genre that refuses to separate the emotional from the physical. In this world, feeling does not remain private.

It alters reality.

Tita De la Garza is born into a system that equates structure with sacrifice. As the youngest daughter, she is forbidden to marry and destined to care for her mother until death.

Love is not immoral—it is destabilizing.

Desire is not sinful—it is inconvenient.

What threatens the system must be contained or erased.

Cooking becomes Tita’s only sanctioned outlet.

Her emotions—grief, longing, erotic desire—have nowhere else to go, so they move through food. What cannot be spoken enters the body by other means.

The meals overwhelm not because they are excessive, but because the feeling behind them has been denied recognition.

This is not romance.
It is pressure.

Psychologically, Like Water for Chocolate shows what happens when desire exists without permission, support, or relational structure.

There is no gradual expression, no mutual negotiation, no space for choice.

Feeling must either disappear or become absolute.

When desire is denied a container, it doesn’t resolve.
It accumulates.

The story carries this logic all the way to its conclusion.

Love is finally consummated only when nothing else remains to be protected, and the fire that was denied containment consumes the house along with the lovers themselves.

The ending is beautiful, devastating, and terminal—not because love is dangerous, but because it was never allowed to live incrementally.

This is desire without shelter.

Fire with nowhere to rest.

Tita and the Language of Food

At the center of Like Water for Chocolate is Tita—a young woman whose inner life has no sanctioned outlet.

From birth, she is bound by an inherited rule that forbids her from marrying or forming a life of her own. Her role is predetermined: service, obedience, care without reciprocity.

Desire is not something she is allowed to explore, negotiate, or even name.

What Tita is allowed to do is cook.

And because everything else is denied expression, food becomes the only place her emotional life is permitted to exist.

In this story, the meals Tita prepares carry the exact emotional state she is in while making them.

When she is grieving, those who eat her food are overcome with sorrow.

When she is longing, desire ripples through the bodies of the diners.

When her heart breaks, the food induces illness, tears, and collapse.

This is not metaphor layered gently on top of realism.
This is the logic of the world.

Feeling does not remain private. It moves outward.

Emotion is transmitted somatically, entering the bodies of others through taste, heat, and texture.

What Tita cannot say is still communicated—chemically, viscerally, involuntarily.

Food becomes the nervous system’s last available language.

The power of this device is not that Tita is magically gifted, but that she is psychologically trapped.

Her emotions overwhelm because they have been denied containment.

There is no place for desire to be held, so it spills into the one medium left open to her.

Her cooking is not expressive by choice.

It is expressive by necessity.

This is what makes Like Water for Chocolate so devastating.

The food does not cause chaos because emotion is dangerous.

It causes chaos because emotion has been exiled from every other relational space.

The body finds a way to speak when it is no longer allowed to be heard.

Chocolat: Desire With Witness

Chocolat tells a different story using the same language.

Vianne arrives in a rigid French village during Lent, opening a chocolate shop where restraint has been mistaken for virtue.

But she does not challenge the town through force or argument.

She listens.

Her chocolate is not expressive overflow; it is attunement.

Each offering is adjusted to the person receiving it—bitterness, sweetness, spice, texture.

Nothing is imposed.

Desire is neither forced underground nor allowed to dominate.

It is acknowledged early, while it can still be integrated.

This is the crucial difference.

Where Tita’s chocolate absorbs what cannot be spoken, Vianne’s chocolate reflects what has been denied attention.

Feeling is invited before it becomes crisis.

Pleasure is paired with care.

Appetite is not severed from responsibility.

Roux moves through the story as wind rather than anchor.

He does not promise permanence, nor does he demand it. Desire here is not framed as destiny or deprivation.

It is experienced, then allowed to remain fluid.

The village survives not because structure is destroyed, but because it loosens enough to breathe.

Chocolate, in this story, does not burn the house down.

It warms it.


The False Choice: Desire or Structure

These two films are often framed as opposites—passion versus restraint, indulgence versus order. But that reading misses the psychological truth beneath both stories.

Many people are taught—implicitly or explicitly—that they must choose between desire and structure.

That wanting threatens stability.

That safety requires suppression.

This is a false choice.

Desire itself is not the problem.

Wanting—physical, emotional, creative, erotic—is evidence of vitality.

What determines whether desire becomes destructive or connective is not its intensity, but the system’s ability to hold it.

In Like Water for Chocolate, desire is denied any container.

It is forbidden, unmanaged, forced underground. With no relational structure to support it, longing has nowhere to rest.

It leaks sideways. It accumulates pressure. Eventually, it erupts.

In Chocolat, desire is welcomed but witnessed.

Pleasure is paired with care.

Feeling is allowed to move early, while it can still be integrated.

Psychologically, this is the difference between intensity and intimacy.

Intensity without containment feels consuming, fated, destabilizing.

Intimacy with containment feels alive, grounded, sustainable.


Capacity Must Be Mutual

There is another truth both films quietly reveal.

This kind of desire—the kind that is alive but regulated—requires two people who both have the capacity to hold it.

One person cannot do this work alone. One nervous system cannot regulate for two.

When one person can stay present with desire and the other cannot, the fire burns unevenly.

One leans in while the other recoils, controls, or disappears.

What begins as connection becomes destabilizing—not because the desire was wrong, but because the capacity was mismatched.

You cannot have desire without the ability to handle it.

Fire itself is not dangerous.

Wildfire is.

Wildfire is not caused by too much heat, but by heat without boundaries, without stewardship.

Fire that has learned where it belongs warms, feeds, and transforms.

Fire that has not learned consumes indiscriminately.

This is the difference between passion that must be survived and passion that can be sustained.


The Difference That Determines the Ending

A final synthesis through Like Water for Chocolate and Chocolat

When everything is held together—the two women, and the man they love, and the cultures that shape what desire is allowed to be—the difference becomes unmistakable.

These are not competing loves. They are two fundamentally different structures of meaning, and structure determines outcome.

In Like Water for Chocolate, Tita’s life is organized almost entirely around Pedro.

Love is not one aspect of her existence; it is the only place where her existence is permitted to matter.

Because her autonomy is denied—choice, movement, authorship—love is forced to carry what a self cannot.

Pedro becomes the container for identity, purpose, and survival itself. This is not weakness; it is deprivation.

When love must hold the full weight of meaning, it cannot breathe.

It cannot evolve.

It can only endure until it breaks.

Desire, confined and postponed, turns inward and accumulates pressure.

When it finally releases, it does so as fire.

The man does not live through it. He is not punished—he is consumed.

Love arrives too late to be integrated, and so the story ends in tragedy.

In Chocolat, Vianne begins elsewhere.

She arrives with a life already in motion—work, appetite, values, community.

Love enters her world, but it does not replace it.

She does not need a man to complete her story; she chooses connection because it adds warmth, not because it supplies identity.

Desire here is acknowledged early enough to circulate, to be shared, to be held.

This difference becomes clearest through Roux.

Roux does not want to be interpreted, rescued, or defined.

Each time Vianne offers to name him—to tell him what his favorite chocolate is—he gently steps back.

“It’s good,” he says. “But it’s not my favorite.”

What he asks for is not insight, but recognition.

And Vianne listens.

She stops trying to define him to himself.

She gives up the role of savior.

She does not project a story onto him or attempt to complete him.

In doing so, she allows him to show her—quietly, clearly—that he does not need saving.

Love here is not rescue.

It is respect.

Because neither needs the other to exist, they are free to choose one another.

The man lives.

The story continues.

Culture matters here.

In the French village of Chocolat, pleasure—while resisted—is ultimately social. It can be discussed, shared, woven into daily life. Desire is not eliminated; it is negotiated.

Because it is allowed some daylight, it does not have to erupt.

Fire becomes hearth.

In the Mexico of Like Water for Chocolate, desire is private, secret, bound to duty and silence.

What cannot be spoken moves into the body, the kitchen, the heat.

Emotion does not circulate; it accumulates.

When release finally comes, it is total.

The fire consumes everything.

Seen together, the films clarify the same truth from opposite ends:

Repression does not eliminate desire.
It only delays it.

One woman loves because love is the only place she is allowed to live.

The other loves because she already lives, and love is something she welcomes.

One story burns because love is asked to replace a self.

The other endures because love is allowed to meet another self, intact.

This is why one story ends in tragedy and the other in joy.

This is why one man dies and the other lives.

The difference is not how deeply anyone feels.

It is when feeling is allowed to live—and whether love is asked to save, or simply allowed to be seen.


Cooking as Practice

This is why cooking matters to me—not as performance, but as practice.

Heat teaches timing.

Fat teaches patience.

Chocolate teaches restraint.

What you add first, what you soften, what you hold back—all of it determines the outcome.

I no longer cook to prove competence.

I no longer write to justify my place in the room.

Feeling moves through what I make because it has been welcomed home—not because it is demanding escape.

Before, emotion leaked through the food because it had nowhere else to live.

Now, emotion moves through the food because it is integrated.

This is not productivity.
It is attunement.

Like water brought just to the point of boil, fire no longer defines itself by danger.

It becomes medicine.

Transmission.

Nourishment.

Chocolate, finally, with a container.

The Fire Was Already There

There’s something humbling about realizing you didn’t arrive at a truth—you returned to it.

Years ago, long before I could articulate what I now understand about desire, containment, and fire that knows where it belongs, I made this chili.

I didn’t think of it as symbolic at the time.

I just knew it needed depth.

Heat needed ballast.

Something dark and steady beneath the spice.

And I knew instinctively that the chocolate mattered.

I used Scharffen Berger—not because it was fancy, but because it was real.

Proper cacao.

Clean bitterness.

Chocolate with integrity.

The kind that doesn’t sweeten or soften heat, but anchors it.

The kind that can stand up to chili powder without disappearing or hijacking the dish.

Little did I know I had already created the very thing I would one day write about: chocolate not as indulgence, but as structure.

As a stabilizing force.

As fire that warms instead of overwhelms.

This chili wasn’t an experiment.

It was a memory resurfacing.

The fire was already there.

I had just forgotten it.

Print
clock clock iconcutlery cutlery iconflag flag iconfolder folder iconinstagram instagram iconpinterest pinterest iconfacebook facebook iconprint print iconsquares squares iconheart heart iconheart solid heart solid icon

Loaded Vegan Chili with Chili Powder & Cacao

5 Stars 4 Stars 3 Stars 2 Stars 1 Star No reviews
  • Author: Stephanie Bosch
  • Prep Time: 15 minutes
  • Cook Time: 45 minutes minimum (up to 2 hours recommended)
  • Total Time: 1–2¼ hours
  • Yield: Serves: 6–8
  • Diet: Vegan

Description

This is a chili built on depth rather than aggression.
The heat is present, but it’s rounded.
The cacao doesn’t announce itself—it anchors everything else.

It’s the kind of food that feels steady in the body. Nourishing without being heavy. Warming without being chaotic. A long-simmered reminder that intensity doesn’t have to shout to be felt.

This is fire that has learned.


Ingredients

Scale

Ingredients:

  • 2 tablespoons olive oil
  • 1 medium onion, chopped
  • 1 medium green bell pepper, chopped into small pieces
  • 4 cloves garlic, pressed or finely minced
  • 1 cup vegetable broth (plus more as needed)
  • 1 (15-ounce) can tomato sauce
  • 1 (15-ounce) can diced tomatoes
  • 1 (15-ounce) can kidney beans, drained and rinsed
  • 1 (15-ounce) can chickpeas, drained and rinsed
  • 1 (15-ounce) can black beans, drained and rinsed
  • ¼ cup mild chili powder
  • 1 tablespoon unsweetened baking cocoa (or cacao powder)
  • 2 tablespoons ground cumin
  • 1 teaspoon sea salt (plus more to taste)
  • ½ teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
  • ½ teaspoon dried oregano


Instructions

  1. Warm a Dutch oven over medium heat for 2–3 minutes. Add the olive oil. Once warmed, add the onion and green pepper and cook for 5–6 minutes, stirring frequently, until softened.
  2. Add the garlic and cook for another 1–2 minutes, stirring constantly and taking care not to let it brown.
  3. Add the chili powder, cocoa, cumin, salt, pepper, and oregano. Stir well to coat the vegetables and let the spices bloom for about 1 minute.
  4. Add the vegetable broth, tomato sauce, diced tomatoes, and all of the beans. Stir, scraping up any browned bits from the bottom of the pot. Increase the heat and bring the chili to a gentle boil.
  5. Reduce the heat to low and simmer uncovered for at least 30 minutes. For deeper flavor, allow the chili to simmer gently for 1–2 hours, stirring occasionally. If it thickens too much during a longer cook, add a splash of broth or water as needed.
  6. Taste and adjust seasoning. Remove from heat.
  7. Serve warm, garnished with vegan sour cream, sliced green onions, avocado, or any favorite toppings.
  8. Enjoy.

Notes

  • Cacao is not here to make this “chocolatey.”
    It adds bitterness and bass notes, giving the chili a grounded spine that keeps the heat from running away.
  • This is a slow chili.
    It gets better the longer it cooks. Thirty minutes is good. An hour is better. Two hours, if you can manage it, is transformational.
  • This dish mirrors emotional regulation.
    You soften first (onion, pepper), bloom the spices gently, then let everything integrate over time. Nothing is rushed. Nothing is suppressed.
  • If it thickens too much, add a splash of broth or water. This chili likes to be held, not forced.