What Janussoni asked: “..Dānāni dema, saddhāni karoma: ‘idaṃ dānaṃ petānaṃ ñāti¬sālo¬hi¬tā¬naṃ upakappatu, idaṃ dānaṃ petā ñātisālohitā paribhuñjantū’ti. Kacci taṃ, bho gotama, dānaṃ petānaṃ ñāti¬sālo¬hi¬tā¬naṃ upakappati; kacci te petā ñātisālohitā taṃ dānaṃ paribhuñjantī”ti?
Dāna is giving. Actually, in the context of the sutta what was done in those days was to give foods to yogis and then give merits of that to petas. It does not make sense to translate dāna in this context as “gifts”.
Paribhuñjati or bhunjati means eating, especially in this context.
The sutta makes that very clear in the paragraph on the petas: “So kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā pettivisayaṃ upapajjati. Yo petti¬vesa¬yi¬kānaṃ sattānaṃ āhāro, tena so tattha yāpeti, tena so tattha tiṭṭhati, yaṃ vā panassa ito anup¬pavec¬chanti mittāmaccā vā ñātisālohitā vā, tena so tattha yāpeti, tena so tattha tiṭṭhati. Idaṃ kho, brāhmaṇa, ṭhānaṃ yattha ṭhitassa taṃ dānaṃ upakappatī”ti.”
It specifically says food or ahara for the petas.
This is the problem of mindlessly translating suttas, without paying attention to the message conveyed.
There are many things about this complex world, that we will not be able to fully comprehend. How can food offered to yogis can materialize as food for petas? It is not that different from how pattidana/punna anumodana works. Most of those yogis were highly moral and had cultivated abhinna powers too; so, there is definitely merits gained by such offerings of food.