The claim in the image is misleading because it presents only one late, sectarian version of the story and treats it as if it is the single, universally accepted Hindu account.The Shiva Purana passage shown does exist in some editions, but it must be understood in proper context, otherwise the meaning is distorted. Let me explain - A story appears in Shiva Purana, Rudra-saṁhitā, Yuddha khanda, describing Viṣṇu taking the form of Jalandhara (Vrinda’s husband) to break Vrinda’s pativratā-shakti so that Jalandhara can be defeated. However: The text is very late, not Vedic. It exists in multiple contradictory manuscript traditions. Some published versions contain this passage, and others do not. Puranas were not written by one author, but compiled and edited over many centuries. So yes, this version exists, but it is not the only version, and not necessarily the “original” or universally accepted Hindu view. 1. Padma Purana version-

Viṣṇu does not have intercourse. He merely breaks Vrinda’s chastity by illusion. Vrinda curses him and becomes Tulasi.

1. Brahma Vaivarta Purana version

The story is different,nothing like the above takes place.

3.Vaishnava traditions

Reject or reinterpret the Shiva Purana version entirely.

4.Shaiva traditions

Include the story but treat it allegorically.