Growing up, priests on motorbikes and almanacs on computers became more common. Who grew up? The participial phrase has no subject of its own. In constructions of this type, the subject of the main clause is understood as the subject of the participial clause.   But this does not seem to fit here.
You have to go back to the previous paragraph to understand what the missing subject is. The writer is comparing his early experiences with what he finds now. When (or: As) he grew up, it became a common sight to find priests on motorbikes.
The fault of style noted here is what is known as the unrelated participle/participial construction or (more picturesquely) the ‘dangling’ participle construction. But the more interesting point to notice is how the demands of structure override what we take to be the natural interpretation.
The writer (whom I have cited above) continues: ‘The trudge to the priest’s place to enquire about the next muhurtam was done away with—a phone call to his condominium. 
The words after the hyphen cannot be understood as part of the sentence preceding the hyphen. If, instead of a hyphen, we had the preposition by, there would have been no structural lacuna. But now the fragment: a phone call to the condominium, stands like a subject without a predicate.
The grammar of conversation is different from that of written texts.  Written texts demand a much fuller explication of structural links than speech.
Now let’s go back to the construction we started with: the participial free adjunct. It is sometimes maintained that the events described in adjunct clause and the main clause should be simultaneous activities.  The writer who makes this point gives this sentence to support his claim. We left for Bombay the previous day, reaching there the next morning at 5 o’clock, This certainly sounds odd.  ‘Leaving and reaching are not contemporaneous’ observes the writer.
Yes. But change the sentence a little and see what happens.  We left for Bombay on Monday evening, reaching the place on Tuesday (or: the next morning) at 5 o’clock. Does the sentence still sound odd?
It doesn’t. The actions are still what they are –not simultaneous. Yet the sentence is good. What’s the explanation?
The explanation is that the condition of simultaneity is not what makes the writer’s sentence bad. That sentence is bad because of a confusion caused by ‘previous day’ (when no day has been mentioned to make clear what is ‘previous’) When this is replaced by identifiable days (Monday, the next morning /Tuesday) the oddity / confusion disappears.
That the condition of simultaneity is spurious can be seen from this authentic sentence from The Times (London). But looking back at it, one can see what really interested him was the idea of combat. (Quoted in Scheurweghs: Present-Day English Syntax.) The event of reviewing or looking back takes place years after the speaker had met the person whose personality is being reviewed.
Having said this, it must be admitted that generally speaking, sentences with a participial free adjunct involve two actions which are near simultaneous, the main clause event closely following on the event in the participial clause. None of those present having any further remarks to make, the chairman closed the meeting.  / The authorities having arrived, the ceremony began. Notice also: the participial clause need not always precede the main clause. The main clause may come first.Young men by the dozen came up, asking her to dance. (All authentic sentences.)
To sum up. Although generally the event in the main clause and the participial clause are near simultaneous, it is not a necessary condition on these structures. The two events may be separated in time. Nor is there any condition that the participial clause come first and then the main clause. The only fault to avoid is the dangling participial construction.
The participial clause can have its own subject. The chairman arriving, the meeting began. Here each clause has its own subject. Such a construction is called the Absolute Participle construction.
Every thing said above applies equally well to structures with past participles. Having left home a boy, he returned home a millionaire. / Having failed to obtain promotion, he was retired at 50. /The young man backed away, puzzled by her behaviour.
Maxims and Observations of Kay S Wye
Truth hurts but to live in delusion is to live a fool’s life.
(The author can be contact at ksyadurajan@yahoo.com)