An Attractive Proposition - ping Timo

Someone wrote,

Contrary to the myth, the Fatio/LeSage
does not have any fatal flaws.

Um.. the La Sage model was conceived considerably prior to the discovery
of supernovae/ hypernovae and quasars. It purports to be the direct
explanation (not just a description of effects) of the _acting causal
mechanism_ of gravity, right?
So, in a nutshell, how does this model explain the
acting mechansim that literally POWERS the gravity that powers the
stellar collapse that drives the fusion that rebounds as a supernova or
hypernova blast? We're *not* talking about describing the
exothermic-to-endothermic chain reaction that ends at iron and *permits*
the catastrophic collapse. We're asking what mechansim _initiates and
powers_ the inward collapse of the star in the first place.
And how does that same mechanism handily POWER the far
grander and more energetic *sustained* process of a quasar, making a
super-or hypernova look like a little one-shot "pop" by comparison?

Be aware that the above is the 'Litmus Test' and gold
standard for any viable theory of gravity. So how does the Fatio/LaSage
"shadowing" idea explain gravity's mechanism in regard to the above?