The complaint against him is that he made a false statement that the 'miracle' was a scam organised by the local church to make money from devotees. If this is

The complaint against him is that he made a false statement that the 'miracle' was a scam organised by the local church to make money from devotees. If this is, in fact, true, then it seems somewhat dishonest of the article to not mention it. There's a big difference (when it comes to defamation) between proving that something isn't true and accusing someone of deliberately fooling the public.