What do you make of it?
Here's a few articles about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-46300459
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-46337353
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-46354940
Long story short, Chau was a self appointed christian missionary who paid fishermen to take him to an island inhabited by the Sentinelese, a tribe of indigenous people that have next to no exposure to the outside world, in order to convert them. It's illegal to make contact with the tribe as they are considered an endangered tribe and the local government have taken measures to protect their isolation but there's also a practical reason why contact with the tribe is forbidden as they have no been exposed to germs and ailments that are common in the outside world which makes contact risky.
Chau got to the island and was killed by the tribespeople and the government have struggled to get back his remains and that's kind of the story at the moment. It's opened up quite a debate on the role of missionaries in today's world.
I personally think he got what he deserved, he knew the risks to the people, he knew the laws yet he still went ahead to try to thrust his faith on others. It's selfish and vain and I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. The articles mention a previous case in which a missionary tried to preach their religion to another isolated tribe and half of them ended up dying because of the germs and bacteria he brought with him.
I think the whole missionary thing should just be widely illegal. I remember reading a book written by a survivor of North Korea in which the missionaries that got her out of there basically forced her into Christianity while she was with them otherwise they wouldn't have gone through with getting her out. That kind of 'charity but only if you convert to our religion' bull**** is repugnant and exploitative.
Honestly, this whole story just makes me quite mad.