Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the expulsion of Shaolin Temple's abbot Shi Yongxin due to serious violations of Buddhist precepts, including alleged criminal activities and inappropriate relationships [1][2] - The public reaction includes mockery and criticism, highlighting a perceived betrayal of Buddhist values and the transformation of Shaolin Temple into a place of moral decay [3][4] - The comparison is made between Shi Yongxin and a "CEO in a robe," suggesting that he exploited the temple's brand for personal gain, contrasting with the practices of similar religious figures in Japan [4][22] Group 2 - The operational model of Shaolin Temple is likened to a state-owned enterprise, where the abbot holds significant power but does not own the assets, emphasizing the need for accountability and transparency [15][16] - The article discusses the historical context of Zen Buddhism in China, noting that early practices did not involve private ownership of temple assets, which contrasts with the current situation where Shaolin Temple has developed into a large commercial entity [20][21] - The revenue model of Shaolin Temple relies heavily on brand licensing, cultural IP, martial arts performances, and donations, which lack transparency and contribute to potential corruption [24][25] Group 3 - The discussion extends to the management practices of religious institutions, suggesting that the key issue is not the personal conduct of leaders but the overall operational transparency and modern management practices [25][26] - The article references successful models of religious organizations that operate transparently and effectively, such as the Tzu Chi Foundation in Taiwan, which emphasizes the importance of modern management in religious contexts [30]