Bangkok: The father of Mr. Alongkot, a deceased former civil servant, has confirmed that he did not personally know the former abbot of Wat Phra Bat Nam Phu, whose life is now under scrutiny.
According to Thai News Agency, the vice president of the Thanathorn Thaksin Foundation has raised several questions regarding the monk’s life, adding to the intrigue surrounding the case.
Mr. Sermwit, father of the deceased Mr. Alongkot, disclosed that the ordination certificate of Luang Por Alongkot bore his son’s name and ID card number. Although he did not know Luang Por Alongkot personally, he mentioned that his son had once told him about a senior individual who wished to use the same surname. The matter was from long ago, and his son never discussed his problems or sought his advice.
Mr. Chalermpol, an employee at the Wat Phra Bat Nam Phu Foundation and a relative, was unaware of Mr. Sermwit’s official association with the foundation, knowing only of his work with Luang Por Alongkot. Mr. Sermwit expressed shock upon learning that his son’s ID card number was used to open a temple account. Although he has not taken legal action yet, discussions are underway regarding potential legal steps concerning identity card fraud.
Mr. Prayut Prasertsena, Vice President of the Thanakhantham Dharma Lawyer Foundation, highlighted unresolved questions about the financial transactions of the temple and foundation. He pointed out the absence of clear evidence regarding financial dealings, emphasizing that temple funds should not be used for foundation activities, as it contravenes the objectives of the foundation.
In the broader context, using another person’s name or ID card can occur in three scenarios: being a fugitive, being a foreigner, or involvement in a call center case. Analyzing Phra Alongkot’s religious name suggests he was likely born around 1960 on a Saturday. The motive for using the deceased’s name might be personal preference, but the crucial concern is whether the 13-digit national ID was linked to a PromptPay account for personal benefit. Despite these suspicions, the behavior does not appear to amount to defamation or any other crime, based on current analysis.