How Buddhist ethics, Peace Studies, and good governance must be combined if relic custodianship is to support, rather than damage, social harmony and public trust.

D. Disputed Buddha Tooth Relics and Scientific Testing

1. Case narrative: claims, forged documents, and investigation

In this case, a network of actors around HGT/Hswagata becomes involved with Buddha tooth relics that are said to have been sent abroad for DNA and Carbon-14 testing.

A former senior member, Mr TK (Mr.B), states in an interview that in June–July 2022 he “conducted” DNA testing on relics and received confirmation of DNA results around October 2022. He reports sending five tooth relics, plus hair, bone fragments, ashes and other relics, via a trusted individual who would deliver them to England. He also mentions donating one Buddha tooth relic to Naga Cave.

At the same time, another actor, Mr PTA(Mr A), circulates two formal-looking letters said to come from the offices of King Charles III and Princess Alexandra. These letters claim that the Buddha tooth relics have undergone official DNA and Carbon-14 testing in the UK and have been confirmed as authentic.

The letters and the story of foreign testing are then used in multiple ways:

• as “proof” that the relics are genuine,

• as support for Mr B’s ownership and status as a discoverer of relics,

• and as a basis for public communication—PowerPoint slides, interviews, and statements—claiming that the relics have high-level royal and scientific endorsement.

For a period, even the Hswagata museum and its custodian accept these documents at face value. Two men present themselves as connected with the V&A Museum and royal offices; they show the letters and insist they are genuine. One of them even swears that, as a disciple of a strict monk, he has “never told a lie.” Trusting their apparent Vinaya background, the custodian publishes an official statement to the Buddhist world, prints the two letters in his annual research magazine, and announces that the relics have been scientifically verified.

However, in 2024 the truth emerges. An AP News Agency reporter, Deepa, contacts the custodian after speaking with the chief spokesperson at Buckingham Palace. The Palace’s response is “clear and unequivocal”:

• the letters are forgeries,

• King Charles III did not authorise, commission, or acknowledge any testing of these relics, and

• Princess Alexandra’s office never corresponded with the individuals named.

Shocked, the custodian realises that “two men had walked into my museum… and lied to my face,” abusing trust and damaging the integrity of the relic project. He conducts a follow-up interview with Mr Thura Kyaw, who confirms that Mr A told him he planned to forge the letters, and that Thura tried to warn him that forgery is dangerous in the digital age.

Meanwhile, there is another strand of misinformation. Mr A and Mr B have reportedly claimed that the tooth relics came from Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw and that Sitagu had arranged DNA and Carbon-14 testing in England. To verify this, Sao sends a research questionnaire and formal letter (2 June 2023) to Dr Ashin Nyanissara (Sitagu Sayadaw). In a phone call on 19 June 2023, Sitagu Sayadaw categorically denies any involvement in collecting these tooth relics or testing them, and denies knowing Mr B in this context. This clarification, later documented, helps debunk rumours about his role.

The case therefore combines:

• real attempts at scientific study (sending relics abroad, receiving some kind of oral report),

• false or unverifiable documentation (forged royal letters, unclear lab connections), and

• misuse of religious authority (invoking Sitagu Sayadaw’s name without consent).

In response, Hswagata undertakes its own proper DNA confirmation process on other relics under its custodianship, and this time it follows strict procedures: a comprehensive report is prepared and sent by registered post to the State Sangha Maha Nayaka Committee, with a copy delivered to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, and press releases issued in Myanmar, Pali, and English to ensure transparency.

This is the turning point: from confused, personality-driven claims to more institutional and documented research practice.

---

2. Buddhist ethical analysis: sacca, right speech, and non-harming

From a Buddhist ethical perspective, this case is a vivid demonstration of how sacred objects can be harmed without anyone touching them—through lies, manipulation, and misuse of names.

1. Sacca vs. musāvāda
   The forging of royal letters and the repeated use of Sitagu Sayadaw’s name without his consent are direct violations of sacca (truthfulness) and the precept against musāvāda (false speech). The seriousness is increased because the lies concern:

   • the Buddha’s relics,

   • highly respected monks, and

   • heads of state and royal families.

   Such lies confuse the faithful and damage confidence in both the Saṅgha and public institutions. The custodian later calls the forgers “manipulators of faith, betrayers of Buddhist values, and violators of Dhamma principles.”

2. Right speech (sammā vācā)
   Classical teachings define right speech as truthful, beneficial, gentle, and timely. Here we see speech that is:

   • untruthful (forgeries, exaggerated claims),

   • harmful (destroying reputations and trust), and

   • mis-timed (announcing unverified “results” to a global audience).

   The later public clarifications, interviews, and apologies are attempts to restore right speech by acknowledging past mistakes and correcting the record.

3. Non-harming and respect for relics
   Scientific testing itself is not un-Buddhist, but the internal manuals stress that DNA extraction and Carbon-14 testing are invasive: they require destroying part of a tooth relic, which may weigh only 0.5–2.3g, and thus risk a “significant loss” of material. Ethical testing therefore demands:

   • proper consent from custodians and communities,

   • careful weighing of benefit vs harm, and

   • total honesty about the methods and limitations.

   In this case, the most serious harm is not physical but symbolic: relics are turned into tools for self-promotion, and scientific language is misused to hide unethical behaviour.

4. Kālāmā Sutta and ethical self-correction
   In retrospect, the custodian reflects on the Kālāmā Sutta, where the Buddha advises not to believe something just because it is often repeated or comes from a respected teacher, but to examine whether it is truly wholesome and leads to welfare. He admits he believed too quickly, and resolves to check evidence more carefully. This is a good example of Buddhist ethical self-correction: turning a painful mistake into stronger commitment to truth.

---

3. Peace Studies lens: rumours, secrecy, and conflict escalation

Using Peace Studies concepts, this case shows how rumours and secrecy can destabilise peace even when there is no physical violence.

1. From “positive peace” to distrust
   Initially there is a kind of positive peace: collaborative relic projects, apparent cooperation with foreign experts, and shared narratives of “scientific confirmation” that bring excitement and unity. But this peace is fragile, because it rests on unverified claims and personal charisma rather than transparent structures.

2. Cultural and structural violence

   • Cultural violence occurs when religious and scientific symbols are used to make unethical actions look acceptable. Here, royal crests, scientific vocabulary, and the name of a revered monk are combined to give moral and intellectual authority to questionable claims. Ordinary devotees are unlikely to question such a powerful combination.

   • Structural violence appears in the absence of:

     • clear procedures for approving tests,

     • institutional document-checking, and

     • mechanisms for raising concerns safely.

     These gaps allow manipulative individuals to act through informal networks, while institutions are slow to respond.

3. Information conflict and media oversight
   The turning point comes when AP News and Buckingham Palace investigate. Their intervention is a form of truth-seeking that reduces rumours and protects innocent actors (e.g. King Charles, Princess Alexandra, Sitagu Sayadaw) from being pulled further into the story.

   In Peace Studies terms, this is an example of media as an oversight mechanism: external fact-checking contributes to conflict de-escalation by clarifying what is false.

4. Psychological and moral injury
   The custodian describes feeling devastated when he learns the truth. A museum “built from faith and scholarly rigour” has been used as a stage for fraud, producing deep moral injury. At the same time, the individuals who believed in the forged letters may feel shame, confusion, or anger. These emotional wounds are part of the conflict and must be recognised if genuine reconciliation is to occur.

5. Conflict transformation: from personal blame to structural learning
   A Peace Studies approach looks not only at “who did wrong”, but at what structures allowed it. The custodian’s response—to establish verification protocols, work with accredited labs, and document sources—is a move from personal disappointment to structural transformation. This is key to preventing similar conflicts and turning a crisis into a learning moment.

---

4. Good governance and SDGs: evidence, consent, and accountability

This case is an excellent illustration of why SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) matters even in religious heritage work.

1. Verifiable evidence and chain of custody
   The story shows that saying “we tested DNA and C-14” is not enough. Good governance requires:

   • written lab reports,

   • clear identification of laboratories and scientists,

   • documented chain of custody (who handled the relics at each step), and

   • official confirmation from institutions (e.g. royal offices) before making public claims.

   The lack of such documentation in the early phase created a fertile ground for misinformation. By contrast, Hswagata’s later report—submitted by registered mail to Sangha and Ministry, with multiple language versions—models traceable, accountable evidence management.

2. Consent and ethical approvals
   Sending relics abroad for destructive testing without clear community consent raises serious ethical issues. The internal research questions explicitly ask whether Sitagu Sayadaw was informed that testing might reduce relics to powder, and how preservation was considered.

   In governance terms, there should be:

   • a formal approval process (Sangha councils, museum boards, perhaps state heritage bodies),

   • written consent from recognised custodians, and

   • a clear explanation of risks and benefits.

3. Document verification and anti-forgery measures
   The case underlines the need for basic procedures to verify letters and digital messages:

   • direct contact with alleged senders (ministry, royal office, lab),

   • checking email domains and phone numbers,

   • using official channels rather than screenshots and personal claims.

   These measures contribute to SDG 16.5 and 16.6 (reducing corruption and building effective, transparent institutions).

4. Institutional reform and partnerships (SDG 11 & 17)
   The broader context of the thesis shows that relic custodianship is part of cultural heritage protection (SDG 11.4) and often relies on partnerships between temples, museums, universities, labs, and governments (SDG 17). This case demonstrates that such partnerships must be governed by:

   • clear agreements about who speaks for whom,

   • joint protocols for research and communication, and

   • shared ethical standards that combine respect for faith with scientific responsibility.