Actor-Turned-Spiritual Healer Faces Tax Evasion Controversy
Jung Ho-keun, a former actor who later became a spiritual practitioner, is under scrutiny for failing to report income from his spiritual consultations and religious services from 2017 to 2021. According to the Korean tax authorities, he earned a substantial income over this five-year period through shamanic (spiritual fortune-telling) services but never reported it. The case has sparked a larger debate about how laws should apply to unconventional practices like fortune telling and spiritual guidance, especially when those activities are monetized.
Jung claimed he believed these earnings were tax-exempt, similar to donations or religious services, and therefore didn’t see the need to register as a business or report the income. However, Korea's National Tax Service (NTS) disagreed and imposed a fine of several tens of millions of won (roughly tens of thousands of dollars). The Tax Tribunal (the Korean version of a tax court) upheld this penalty, stating that his activities clearly involved paid services, both through in-person consultations and online platforms such as YouTube.
From Actor to Spiritual Consultant
Jung Ho-keun began his career in 1984 as a drama actor under MBC and enjoyed a steady presence in Korean television. However, in 2015, he publicly announced his transition to shamanism (a form of spiritual healing rooted in traditional Korean beliefs), saying he'd "answered a spiritual calling." Afterward, he opened a private shrine and started offering personal consultations, divinations, and rituals. His work was later featured in media appearances and on his popular YouTube channel, where he performed live readings and shared shamanic teachings.
The tax issue began when it was discovered that between 2017 and 2021, he had not reported any of these earnings nor registered his spiritual activities as a business. While he cited confusion and a lack of clarity in tax law as reasons—particularly around whether this type of work counted as a taxable service—the authorities were unconvinced. They concluded he was running a for-profit operation without fulfilling his tax obligations.
Two Sides: Regulation vs. Cultural Practice
Support for Tax Enforcement: Fair Taxation for All
Supporters of the government’s decision argue that Jung, regardless of his spiritual leanings or the cultural background of his practice, was earning taxable income. They argue that fairness in taxation depends on treating all income-generating activities equally, whether from entertainment, consulting, or spiritual guidance. They see this case as a necessary step to reinforce transparency and equal enforcement across all sectors.
The Tax Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that Jung had clearly profited from services that involved economic gain. From an ethical standpoint, many argue, public figures have a heightened responsibility to uphold legal obligations, including tax reporting. Doing so maintains public trust and sets a moral precedent, especially in professions involving influence over others’ beliefs and decisions.
Jung’s Defense: Confusion, Not Intent
Jung has maintained that he did not intend to evade taxes. He claims he was simply unaware that his work required business registration or tax reporting, believing that his work fell under religious exemptions. He further cited the cash-heavy, informal nature of shamanic practices as one reason why consistent reporting was challenging.
He also pointed out that in many cases, spiritual services are intertwined with cultural beliefs and non-profit traditions, blurring the line between public religious service and commercial operation. Additionally, people working in the spiritual or shamanic fields often lack access to basic tax education or financial professionals, increasing the odds of unintentional non-compliance.
Bigger Questions: Tradition in the Modern System
This incident has raised some important questions about how traditional religious or cultural practices should be treated under modern tax frameworks. In Korea and many other societies, spiritual and alternative practitioners exist in a gray zone—not quite religious institutions, not quite commercial ventures.
Critics say there’s a need for clearer legal definitions and better tax education across less conventional industries. Even if someone believes they are performing religious rites or helping others spiritually, when money changes hands for those services, some level of financial accountability should follow. That doesn’t necessarily mean the system needs to crack down excessively, but it does highlight the need for clearer guidelines and accessible tax support for these communities.
Meanwhile, those on Jung’s side worry about overreach, emphasizing that labeling spiritual work as a business could lead to excessive monitoring of religious and cultural expressions. They also argue that tax law shouldn't inadvertently punish misunderstood belief systems.
Public Reaction: Divided but Engaged
Online reactions have been mixed. Many say that regardless of the job, people need to pay taxes—it’s a basic civic duty. Others are more sympathetic, seeing Jung as the victim of overly complex tax rules unsuited to his line of work. A few comments suggest that while ignorance isn’t an excuse, intentional fraud isn’t clear-cut either in cases like this.
Still, public opinion has leaned skeptical. “He had a YouTube channel and appeared on talk shows. That sounds like business to me,” one commenter wrote. Others said, “He had a responsibility as a public figure—it’s not just about taxes, it’s about social trust.”
What Comes Next?
Jung’s case may become an important precedent. If someone in such a prominent position can’t claim ignorance or confusion as an excuse, it might prompt others in similar fields to reassess their responsibilities.
For the government, the takeaway may be to enhance outreach and education—possibly even to build a special track in the tax code for spiritual consultants or uncommon professions. For everyone else, it’s a reminder: no matter how nontraditional your job may be, if money is involved, the tax office cares.
