Luang Por Alongkot Denies Resignation as Donation Storm Swirls Around Lop Buri Temple
At 4:00 pm on August 18, a quiet visit by Somporn Somakheng, the caretaker of Wat Phra Baht Nam Phu, set off another round of headlines from Lop Buri. Somporn met with the temple’s abbot, Phra Ratchawisutthiprachanat — more popularly known as Luang Por Alongkot — amid growing rumors that the revered monk had tendered his resignation amid controversy over how donations have been handled at the temple.
Instead of handing in a formal resignation, Luang Por Alongkot chose to speak directly to the public — via a video message relayed to reporters at Amarin TV — to put the record straight. “I have not stepped down,” he said calmly, asking devotees and the curious alike to stay calm. He added that any decision about his future would come only after careful consideration and for valid reasons, and that a final decision would likely be announced within a month.
“Please remain mindful and have faith,” the abbot told followers. “If one’s deeds are wrong, karma will follow. We must reflect on our actions to find peace.” (Reported by KhaoSod)
There was a bit of theater in his reply — not the theatrical kind, but the wise, lived-in kind that religion often delivers when a public figure is tested. Luang Por Alongkot emphasized the role of karma: good and bad deeds carry consequences, and self-reflection must guide any spiritual leader. He asserted that he has never taken a day off from his monastic duties and pledged to accept the consequences if any investigation finds wrongdoing. Still, he seemed confident that his lifetime of good deeds would hold weight against current allegations.
He also acknowledged that life is not without its challenges — what he called mara in Buddhist terms — and outlined a two-pronged approach for meeting them: overcome obstacles with wisdom and strength, and temper responses with compassion and forgiveness. “This is how cycles of revenge are prevented,” he said, framing his stance as both pragmatic and spiritual.
Allegations, a Spiritual Medium, and Missing Donations
Behind the headlines are sharper allegations: claims of embezzlement and even land fraud tied to the temple. One of the central figures in the controversy is Sakesan “Bee” Bubsuebsakun, a well-known Thai spiritual medium. Abbot Phra Alongkot has publicly requested that Bee clarify her involvement after accusations that donations — specifically funds raised to support AIDS patients under the temple’s care — went missing or were misappropriated.
The dispute reportedly escalated into a public exchange of blame between the medium and the abbot, with each camp raising fingers at the other. While investigations and explanations continue, the abbot’s plea to Bee was straightforward: clear up the confusion so the temple’s reputation and charitable work can move forward without lingering doubt.
Why This Matters
Wat Phra Baht Nam Phu is more than a tourist stop or a local shrine: temples in Thailand often serve as community hubs, offering social services and spiritual solace. When allegations of financial mismanagement surface, the ripple effects touch donors, beneficiaries, and the wider community — especially when vulnerable groups like AIDS patients are said to be affected.
What makes this episode particularly sticky is the combination of religious authority, popular spirituality (the medium’s role), and the modern demand for financial transparency. In a landscape where public trust is fragile, even the hint of impropriety can become a major story fast.
Next Steps and a Month to Decide
For now, Luang Por Alongkot has asked for patience. He promised a resolution within roughly a month and urged followers to remain mindful and trusting of the process. Meanwhile, the temple community — and quite likely law enforcement or administrative bodies — will continue to look into the allegations of missing donations and claims of land fraud.
Whether the outcome will vindicate the abbot, implicate others, or reveal systemic problems remains to be seen. What seems clear is that the temple’s next moves will be watched closely by devotees, local residents, and national media alike.
As the story unfolds, the abbot’s message is both a call for inner calm and a reminder of a timeless principle: in the face of accusation, the balance of deeds — and the truth — will eventually surface.
Karma is poetic, but it doesn’t balance a missing bank ledger. If donations to AIDS patients vanished, people deserve hard proof and arrests if fraud is found. Saying “trust me” isn’t enough when vulnerable people lose help.
Calm down before calling for arrests; rumors spread fast in small towns and temples are targets for gossip. We need an independent audit, not a mob trial.
An audit is exactly what I want, Larry, but audits sometimes come too late if funds already moved. Transparency now, not faith as a cover, is the demand.
You both miss the cultural angle; monks hold social power and the medium’s influence muddies things, so people believe different authorities. That makes sorting facts harder, not easier.
I like Luang Por’s calm tone, honestly; resignation talk is dramatic TV. Still, put the receipts online so donors can see where money went. Simple ledger solves half the problem.
This is sickening if true—donations meant for AIDS patients can’t just disappear because of some squabble. Someone needs to face consequences so donors stop feeling cheated. Temples shouldn’t be above the law when people are harmed.
As the person mentioned, I deny misappropriating funds and I welcome an investigation to clear my name. Spiritual work is not a money-scheme, and accusations hurt devotees and me. Show the audit and let’s end the gossip.
Claims from both sides underscore the need for a neutral forensic audit and legal oversight over temple finances, especially where charities are involved. This isn’t about attacking religion, it’s about protecting social services and beneficiaries. The state can set accounting standards without violating religious freedom.
I worked with a volunteer group near Lop Buri and saw vague receipts; something smelled off. If the temple truly supported AIDS care, there should be patient records and supplier invoices to verify spending.
I visited the abbot that afternoon and he seemed steady and focused on the community, not on fleeing. The abbot asked for calm, and many of us in the temple want the truth to come out fairly. Paperwork is being gathered, as far as I know.
As a local, I worry more about the patients than the headlines; did anyone check if their services stopped? Devotees deserve answers on whether food or medicine was cut.
May, we checked: some services continued but some disbursements were delayed while records are clarified. The priority now is to ensure patients aren’t left without support as investigations proceed.
This episode reveals structural vulnerabilities where charismatic authority meets informal fundraising; the remedy is regulation tailored to religious charities. Implement mandatory independent audits for temples that solicit public funds and set clear beneficiary reporting rules. That will protect both religion and citizens.
You sound reasonable but beware of heavy-handed regulation that could politicize religion, causing backlash and driving donations underground. Community-led transparency might be better than state audits.
Community oversight is useful but inconsistent; a hybrid approach with minimal regulatory standards plus civil-society monitoring could balance freedom and accountability.
My aunt donated to that AIDS fund and the monk said prayers for her husband; if money is missing that breaks my faith. Resign now, show the accounts, and stop hiding behind karma talk. People are suffering, not meditating on metaphysics.
I get your anger, Pim, but immediate resignation might wreck good programs that actually help people now. Let the inquiry finish and then decide on leadership changes if wrongdoing is proven.
That’s cold comfort to victims; ‘wait’ often equals ‘never’ in these cases.
This stinks of power plays between local elites and spiritual celebrities; I wouldn’t be surprised if land deals and patronage networks explain the mess. When temples control land and money, corruption follows unless someone enforces rules.
Conspiracy talk cheapens real claims; provide evidence before accusing elites. Not every scandal is a grand conspiracy.
I didn’t say ‘grand conspiracy’—just that concentration of resources attracts abuse, which is a mundane but true point.
Faith leaders must be accountable because they wield real social power, but rushing to punish without facts risks injustice. The abbot asking for a month shows restraint and maybe confidence, so let’s see the investigation’s findings.
Media loves a temple scandal; sensational headlines sell. That said, independent verification is still needed because allegations impact real people and donors.
As someone who covers local news, I can say we publish what sources provide and we ask tough questions; we’re not out to destroy reputations without evidence. Readers should demand documents from those accused and from the temple.
Fair, but reporters should also follow up on patient outcomes, not just the monk’s quotes.
If the temple handled public donations, why isn’t there a public ledger or donors’ report? A simple public account would stop rumors and rebuild trust fast. Temples that do charity should share beneficiary and spending lists monthly.
I volunteered at another temple and saw cash envelopes exchanged with no receipts; volunteers had no real oversight. A public ledger would have prevented confusion and given us a place to point when checks bounced.
Exactly, Volunteer14 — transparency saves reputations and helps the needy. Let’s demand a ledger now.
Using ‘karma’ as a PR line after accusations is textbook deflection. Spiritual lessons are not a legal defense against embezzlement.
This is an instructive moment about the tension between religious autonomy and social welfare accountability; governments should craft proportional oversight that respects rites while safeguarding donors. A legal framework for temple-based charities, modeled on nonprofit best practices, would mitigate future crises. Scholars and policymakers should collaborate with monastic communities to design culturally appropriate transparency measures.
I disagree that the state should tinker with religious institutions; history shows it erodes spiritual freedom. Let communities police themselves instead of adding bureaucrats.
Mark, historical abuses of state control are real, but leaving vulnerable beneficiaries exposed to opaque financial practices is also unacceptable; limited, clearly defined safeguards can protect both liberty and welfare.