……………. In order for there to be any basis in fact for the concept of Karma certain conditions need to be accepted.
Firstly there needs to be a causal link between action and consequence at a later date.
Secondly the definition of Karma needs to be seen as a causal or logical effect rather than a mystical one.
A mistake often made is the confusion of Karma with a similar concept termed fate.
Fate needs to be defined to allow clarity.
There is free will for all things one has options for so long as they also have the means of making those option choices happen.
Then there is fate which concerns those events that confront one that one does not have options or control over.
Karma is often seen as the self fulfilling prophesy of fate. As in the observation of a disaster or tragedy and the recollection of a prior transgression by the subject of the disaster.
These are subjective and have only marginal influence on causality.
The interest of Karma then lies within logical causality. That the transgression determined the tragedy or disaster.
A transgression is manifestly stupid. It therefore follows that a stupid person is quite likely to do more stupid deeds and may invite disaster upon themselves. Karma, tough luck guy!
There are more subtle determinitives as well. A person upsets a group, the group then despises that person, bereft of support the person then falls upon tragedy. The group can smuggly nod to each other and note the hand of Karma.
Some folks hold that there is divine justice, some greater power that rewards the good and punishes the bad. Karma for these people is generally of the latter case … as in “I am powerless but that bstrds Karma will turn around and bite him one day”.
Possible as a causal link if sufficient people hate the bstrd and turn against him … he gets his “come uppence” … but hardly divine.
There are dogma definitions of course, and cult level assumptions. Perhaps it’s all simply Karma.