True Buddha School (Lu Sheng-yen)

True Buddha School was founded by Lu Sheng-yen (b. 1945, Chiayi, Taiwan), a former Presbyterian Sunday-school teacher and Taiwanese army survey engineer who began teaching a blend of Tibetan tantric, Taoist, and folk-Buddhist practice from the late 1970s–80s, eventually relocating the school's administrative base to Redmond, Washington. Lu is venerated by followers as 'Living Buddha Lian-Sheng' and claims recognition as a reincarnate lineage-holder; the school states a membership in the millions, though independent estimates are substantially lower.

Documented controversy centres on two areas. First, a formal dispute with mainstream Buddhist orthodoxy: in 2007 seven Malaysian Buddhist organisations (including the Buddhist Federation of Malaysia and the Malaysian branch of the International Buddha's Light Association) issued a joint statement characterising True Buddha School as a Buddhist 'heretic' movement, disputing Lu's claim to be a living Buddha and to hold 'supreme power of Dharma,' and stating his personal conduct was inconsistent with Buddhist teaching. The same 2007 statement criticised commercial practices at Lu's gatherings, citing a ceremonial hat reportedly priced at $300,000 and a cassock at $100,000, with auction proceeds going to Lu personally; a 2012 case in New Taipei City saw a True Buddha Sect leader accused of violating banking law after promising guaranteed stock-investment returns to congregants. Second, Lu drew regulatory scrutiny in Washington State: a collective cash donation by followers to then-Governor Gary Locke, made after Lu addressed his Seattle-area temple, prompted a Washington State Public Disclosure Commission investigation; Locke was cleared of wrongdoing in 1998 and the matter did not affect his later confirmation as US Secretary of Commerce.

Existing CLCIHub sourcing (Edward Irons's academic work and Chinese-language press investigations) references additional sexual-misconduct allegations against Lu; this review's English-language search did not independently surface primary reporting for those specific claims, which should be treated as unverified pending direct sourcing rather than removed outright. The 'Low' confidence rating reflects both the school's scale and the comparative thinness of independent, English-language documentation relative to its membership claims.