Secrets of the Millionaire Mind rests on the premise that financial outcomes are determined by internal programming rather than external circumstances. While this framework has resonated with many readers, it has drawn criticism from economists and social scientists on several grounds.

A central objection concerns the book's causal claims. Critics of mindset-based wealth philosophies argue that confidence, optimism, and goal-oriented thinking are often presented as primary causes of financial success, even though it can be difficult to determine whether such attitudes precede wealth or develop as a result of it. Economists Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir argue in Scarcity (2013) that conditions of scarcity can themselves shape cognition and decision-making, complicating Eker’s implication that financial outcomes mainly begin with mindset.

Critics also contend that mindset-based approaches place primary responsibility on the individual while giving comparatively little attention to structural barriers. Research on wealth inequality has shown that factors such as family background, inheritance, educational opportunities, race, and class can influence financial outcomes. These findings suggest that factors such as class, race, and intergenerational transfers shape outcomes in ways that individual mindset alone cannot override.

The book also reflects a common criticism of success literature known as survivorship bias. Like many works in the success-literature genre, the book draws heavily on examples of highly successful individuals while giving less attention to people who displayed similar attitudes and behaviors but did not achieve comparable results. By citing only confirming cases, the text overstates the predictive power of its thesis.

Some critics also question the scientific basis of concepts commonly found in prosperity-oriented self-help literature. Ideas involving mental programming, declarations, or the direct influence of thought on external outcomes are often supported through anecdotal evidence and personal testimony rather than controlled empirical research. Many of these claims remain contested within mainstream psychology and economics.