Keely Johnson: Landscapes of the Sacred #3

Lane's phenomenological approach seems to contradict his second axiom. First he states that a sacred place is an ordinary place that is made extraordinary through rituals, then he says that one must look at the physical place itself and the role it plays in being sacred. These seem like completely opposite ideas that do not have much room for consideration of the other. I prefer the phenomenological approach because it takes into account the physical characteristics of the place in question, not just the man made rituals. I believe the appearance of the place plays a larger role in sacrality than a random person deciding to perform an abnormal task a site they said chose them. I think topography draws a person and leaves them with a wonder of what may have happened in this particular place. I don't think a place needs a ritual to be made sacred, but just is because it was meant to be.