Inspired by a homily delivered in church by the defendant, a deacon in plaintiff’s church, plaintiff agreed to and did donate over $1 million to buy a car and home for an allegedly homeless family.  Later, plaintiff sued for fraud, claiming that defendant spent the donation on unauthorized items and had deed the car and home not to the homeless family, but to a nonprofit corporation run by defendant’s wife.  This decision affirms denial of defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion.  Though the in-church homily was protected speech, the claim did not arise from the homily, but rather from later, private and not protected activity–a private conversation between plaintiff and defendant and the still later expenditure of the donation and titling of the car and home.  That these unprotected activities “flowed from” the protected homily was insufficient to grant them status as protected free speech.  And, the private conversation didn’t become protected speech merely because it occurred in the church and could have been observed or overheard by others.  Also, under v. DoubleVerify, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, the later private conversation and actions were not conduct in furtherance under CCP 425.16(e)(4) because they did not contribute to any public debate over any public issue, such as homelessness.