28.1

The death of the man known colloquially throughout India as the “King of the sadhus” captured the attention of the faithful as the news spread rapidly through the internet. People wanted to know more about Shard. Was he a leader, a prophet… and if so, of what religion?

Was it true that he had nominated the precise moment of his death?

Was it, in fact, suicide?

Shard’s death and the innuendo surrounding it provided much needed food for a veritable feast of opinion surrounding the existence, or not, of God.

What was the full extent of his vision?

Was it true, that even after his death, this vision would live on?

Was there a film?

When was it going to be released to the public?

By the time the World Press took up the charge, the details of his strange, timely death had already initiated a huge wave of interest.

“King of sadhus predicts moment of death.”

“Predicted death claim ridiculed by physician.”

“Holy man death must be suicide.”

The frenzy about the cause of death peaked at the door of the Coroner’s office. But with his statement that this was “a perfectly natural death” with “no marks or wounds” found on Shard’s body, and “no drug or poison” in his blood, the focus shifted to something more easily digestible.

“Australian footballer at holy man death.”

“Carlton mid-fielder lost in India.”

“Renunciation “unlikely” says football club.”

When the international reporters got their ears to the ground in Mumbai, the claims escalated.

“Max Austin – drugged, brainwashed or hypnotized?”

“Renunciation filmed.”

“Claim camera implanted in footballer’s eye!”