Jane Yanthip Denies Misusing Temple Donations

Whispers turned into headlines this week when a well-known female spiritual medium found herself at the center of a swirl of allegations — and she’s strenuously denying them. Pornnaruemon “Jane” Riabroycharoen, who many know by her stage name Jane Yanthip (literally “Jane the clairvoyant”), has been accused in media reports of diverting donations meant for religious merit-making. The story, which began to gather momentum on September 3 after Channel 3 actor and news anchor Kanchai “Noom” Kamnerdploy mentioned it on air, has since sparked heated online debate across Thailand.

Noom said he received information linking Jane to long-term misuse of funds donated by followers — allegedly over more than a decade. The claims include accusations that money and gold given for the construction of a large stupa were used instead for personal expenses. One detail that captured public attention: as the stupa campaign rolled out, Jane was reportedly seen carrying increasingly luxe designer handbags, which fueled suspicions among some donors and viewers.

Channel 8 anchor Phutthaphiwan Ongphrabaramee reportedly received similar tips, though Noom was careful to stress that Jane had not been legally found guilty and urged her to come forward with clarifications. That caution is important; while rumors and appearances can stoke outrage, legal processes and verified records remain the authoritative route to truth.

Jane’s camp hit back quickly. Her manager, Rungtawan, joined a phone interview on Noom’s programme to dispute the allegations point by point. She insisted that all money and gold given by devotees was allocated to religious causes, not pocketed. Rungtawan acknowledged that funds had been temporarily held in her bank account — a common practice during fundraising drives — but maintained that neither she nor Jane used the money for personal gain. According to her, those sums were later distributed to multiple temples both inside Thailand and overseas, and financial records exist to substantiate the transfers.

One sticking point, Rungtawan explained, was security. She said the donated gold had not been placed inside the stupa yet because of concerns about safe storage — an explanation that may make sense to some but appears to have left others unconvinced. “We’ve kept everything documented and will show proof,” she said, promising transparency once the team completes its audit of receipts and transfers.

Adding a further twist to the narrative, online rumours surfaced claiming Jane played a role in a separate, higher-profile donation fraud connected to Phra Bat Nampu Temple — a case that already has a former abbot in police custody. Some posts alleged Jane helped handle more than 30 million baht linked to that temple. Jane denies any involvement in the Phra Bat Nampu investigation and clarified her role in a related televised campaign.

She acknowledged participating as a representative in the Khon Uad Phee television programme’s fundraising drive, which reportedly raised around 30 million baht. Jane said the money had been handed directly to the abbot at the time and that she received no personal cut. “I acted only as a campaign representative,” she said in a later statement, adding that she and her team are compiling financial records and other evidence to present publicly to clear her name.

This episode is a vivid reminder of how quickly public figures can be swept into controversy when money, faith and celebrity intersect. Donors want assurance that offerings intended for temples, stupas or charitable causes are used as promised, and when visible luxury items appear in the hands of prayer leaders, questions inevitably follow.

At the same time, this case highlights the importance of due process. Allegations, even when widely repeated online and mentioned on air, are not proof. Jane and her management say they will produce bank records and receipts to trace every baht and gram of gold — and if those records corroborate their account, the narrative will need to be revised.

For now, the story remains in flux. Authorities are investigating the Phra Bat Nampu matter involving the former abbot, and Jane’s defenders promise full transparency on the fundraising that bears her name. Followers, critics and curious members of the public are watching closely, waiting to see whether financial records will lay these rumors to rest or confirm the worst of the suspicions.

In an era when livestreamed ceremonies, social-media updates and televised campaigns amplify both devotion and scrutiny, the lesson is clear: transparency matters. Whether in a temple or on a broadcast, the public’s trust is fragile — and once shaken, it takes more than reassurances to restore. Jane’s next move will be crucial, and many will judge not only what she says but the documents she produces to back it up.

Until the evidence is examined and officials conclude their inquiries, the best approach for readers is cautious curiosity: follow the facts, hold leaders accountable, and reserve final judgment for verified records and formal rulings.