Public information confirms that (a) the episode’s charity plug for the poker game directed listeners to donate to Beast Philanthropy, alongside the Humane Society’s “Going Big for Beagles” campaign, but does not state the exact total raised or how that specific pot of money was used, and (b) Beast Philanthropy is a food‑focused nonprofit that channels donations into fighting food insecurity and related assistance.

Evidence:

• The episode description for E116 lists Beast Philanthropy’s donation link as one of the two target charities of the poker event but gives no breakdown of the poker proceeds or their later impact. (podcasts.apple.com)
• Beast Philanthropy (MrCharity, Inc.) reports multi‑million‑dollar annual revenue and expenses as a 501(c)(3) food‑bank charity, confirming it is a functioning, sizeable organization rather than a shell; however, its public financials and Form 990 filings do not trace specific incoming donations (like a single $350k gift) to specific outcome numbers. (projects.propublica.org)
• The Beast Philanthropy homepage and donate page emphasize that donations are used to “fight food insecurity and provide food and assistance to people and communities in need,” and they publish aggregate outputs: over 55.8 million pounds of food, 46.5 million meals delivered, and 8.1 million individuals fed, demonstrating large‑scale food assistance. (beastphilanthropy.org)
• At the same time, Beast Philanthropy also funds other non‑food projects (clean‑water wells, school tech, medical procedures, etc.) through the same nonprofit, so unrestricted donations are not guaranteed to be allocated exclusively to food. (en.wikipedia.org)
• Typical U.S. food‑bank partners like Feeding America state that each donated dollar can provide on the order of 10 meals, implying that a $350,000 contribution to an efficient food‑distribution charity could plausibly translate into millions of meals and thus tens of thousands of people served, but this is an external benchmark, not Beast‑specific reporting. (nasdaq.com)

Putting this together: it is highly plausible on efficiency and scale grounds that $350,000 routed through Beast Philanthropy ultimately supported food assistance for at least tens of thousands of people. However, the charity’s public reports do not attribute outputs to that specific poker donation, nor do they publish a clear, organization‑specific “meals (or people) per donated dollar” figure that would let us rigorously verify the claim. Because enough time has passed but the impact of that particular donation cannot be isolated from available data, the prediction cannot be decisively marked correct or incorrect and is best classified as ambiguous.