Wu Xiangui [伍賢貴] (1886-1940)'
https://zh-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/吳賢貴?_x_tr_sl=zh-TW&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
Your Western author is getting his information from the Chinese language Wikipedia page which I have linked above in its automated English translation. This Chinese language (Zh) is produced in the US and Taiwan (and is anti-Chinese - often perpetuating 'fake' and 'false' stories, data and misleading information). China has its own encyclopaedias and therefore Wikipedia is 'banned' due to its racism and general inaccuracy. I suspect your author simply auto-translates into his own language and then re-translates that into 'English' (I have come across this with Dutch people). However, the reference given for the data is this entry is this:
'「剛柔流に光をし込んだ漢、呉賢貴とは誰なんだ?」,《空手道》月刊,2004年1月號特集。'
'"Goju Ryu - Bathed in Light By a Chinese Person (Han) - Go Ken Ki - Who Is He?", "Karate-Do" Monthly Publication - January 2004 - Special Feature.'
I can find no mention of such a person in Chinese language sources. The problem is that these three ideograms used to spell his name - '呉賢貴 - may look 'Chinese' but they are not - they are 'Japanese' phonetical representations. This is similar to the situation regarding 'Ru Ru Ko' and the seemingly 'Chinese' name that result which is not a proper 'Chinese' name.
賢 = Gen (Ken) - intelligent, clever, quick-witted and sagely - Chinese is '賢' (Xian) meaning virtuous, good, clever, wise and worthy.
貴 = Ki - Expensive, Esteem, costly and superior - Chinese is '貴' (Gui) meaning valuable, costly and valuable.
Therefore, the Chinese name of this person would read in Chinese as '伍賢貴' and his name would be properly pronounced as 'Wu Xiangui [伍賢貴] (1886-1940)'. Having fed this through the hundreds of encyclopaedias, journals and articles available on the Chinese language internet - the result is 'zero' returns. This would suggest that this is a fake story - but more research is needed. Generally speaking, even traitors to China are carefully and fully listed so that we all know who they are - so it is unusual to find 'zero'. Chinese Wiki is the US view of China and not the Chinese view of China. I would like to know where the magazine was published which is the only reference for this entire story!
Thanks
Adrian