Hebrew Shlomo derives from the root sh-l-m, peace, completeness, the same root as shalom and Jerusalem, the city of peace. The name contains no Latin, no Sanskrit, and no Egyptian. Om, Aum, is the Hindu sacred syllable, associated with the absolute, not the sun. On is the Egyptian city the Greeks called Heliopolis, sun-city, so that third syllable is the only one even adjacent to sunlight, and Solomon's documented name has no On in it either. The Sol-Om-On decomposition appears in Jordan Maxwell's lectures and astrotheology slides, not in any lexicon.
The claim's real appeal is structural, three traditions, one king, suggesting a hidden solar religion beneath scripture, with Solomon's temple as sun-temple and his wisdom as light. Maxwell's version often adds the Temple's eastward orientation and solar alignments as supporting architecture. The pieces are real, temples do face the sun, but the name itself, the load-bearing evidence, is fabricated, which makes the whole edifice a set decoration around an empty plinth.
The claim: Sol-Om-On is paretymology as religious experience, the thrill of the hidden pattern is the product, not the linguistics, and its viral persistence shows that a beautiful false derivation outperforms a boring true one because only the false one feels like a discovery. Verdict: the archive's own Corona 666 file documents the same machine: apophenia does not check lexicons. But note what the claim accidentally reveals: seekers sense, correctly, that scripture is dense with older layers. They are right about the strata. They are wrong about this stratum.
Why do the most viral etymologies never survive contact with a lexicon?