Verse 26 makes it clear that the anonymous rebel did not, in fact, do any shutting up, and was instead quite loud and demonstrative. The word read here as ‘convulsions’, σπαράξαν, could also mean ‘rending’, which would indicate damage to himself and his surroundings. But he did leave.
There is no indication that the anonymous rebel is still present on the scene after this verse, so rather than seeing the result being the exit of the spirit from the man, but instead that of the man from the scene. But like this entire exercise, this is a non-orthodox view. I’m sure there are grammatical arguments against my hypothesis here. I do know that this is taught as a transcendental event, and I find it gratifying that it can easily be read mundanely with the right contextual framing.