Can God Be Replicated? The Tension Between Faith and Ownership.
The title is by CHAT GPT. My objective in initiating the dialogue was to understand what Intellectual Property Rights a man-made shrine, temple, church, or similar structure could be endowed with. The entire dialogue is very long. When I wanted to close the dialogue, the CHAT GPT asked whether it could create an article on this topic. I agreed and the article given below is written by CHAT GPT. I had some differences with its views. It was quite clear that the AI is still a child of Homo Sapiens. It is still to reach the level of what the children of Arthur C Clarke’s “Childhood’s End” had reached. Anyway, enjoy it.
A quiet but revealing controversy has emerged in eastern India: a newly constructed replica of the revered Vaidyanath Dham temple, originally located in Odisha and centuries old, has been established in a neighboring state. The new temple bears the same name. In response, a priest from the original shrine was suspended for allegedly aiding the creators of this duplicate. This dispute opens up a profound question: can anyone claim monopoly over God, and by extension, over how God is worshipped?
At first glance, this appears to be a simple issue of religious protocol or institutional discipline. But beneath the surface lies a complex intersection of faith, cultural identity, economic interest, and symbolic power. The battle here is not over God as a divine entity — which transcends human boundaries — but over the right to define and own the experience of the divine.
Faith and Its Material Anchors.
Temples like Vaidyanath Dham are more than places of worship; they are repositories of history, emotion, and local identity. They gain sanctity not just from scriptures but from centuries of collective memory, pilgrimage, and ritual. So when a new temple copies the name and appearance of such a site, it isn’t just a matter of replication. It becomes a claim to the same sacred narrative.
This raises a critical question: is this act a democratization of access to God, or is it a commercial and symbolic intrusion into a sacred domain that others have carefully preserved? For the custodians of the original shrine, the answer seems clear: it’s an encroachment that threatens the legacy, authority, and economic ecosystem of their spiritual center.
The Economics of Devotion
Make no mistake: temples, like many religious institutions worldwide, are also economic hubs. Pilgrimage circuits generate revenue through donations, services, tourism, and cultural products. A new temple bearing the same name can siphon attention, pilgrims, and money. This isn’t just a spiritual challenge — it’s a competitive business model cloaked in the language of faith.
The suspension of the priest is telling. It implies that aiding the creation of a rival shrine is a kind of betrayal — not of God, but of institutional loyalty and legacy control. It suggests that in the eyes of the original temple authority, God may be universal, but the brand of God, the temple identity, is not.
God, Ownership, and Cultural Capital
The irony is striking: in principle, no one owns God. But in practice, religious institutions often act as if they do — managing access, interpreting rituals, controlling narratives, and defending their exclusive association with particular deities or traditions.
This phenomenon isn’t unique to India. Worldwide, famous shrines, churches, mosques, and synagogues often guard their names, images, and traditions. Attempts to replicate them can lead to legal action, moral condemnation, or both.
So what are we really fighting over? It’s not just land or structure. It’s symbolic capital. The ability to say, “this is the true place,” or “this is the authentic lineage,” gives not only spiritual prestige but also social and economic authority.
A Way Forward
If faith is to remain inclusive and expansive, perhaps we must learn to distinguish between devotion and domination. Sharing sacred architecture or names need not dilute the power of the original — provided there is transparency, consent, and mutual respect. But when replication becomes a tool of rivalry, it risks turning the sacred into a commodity.
In the end, the question remains: is God a universal being, or a trademark of tradition? The answer will shape not only the future of our temples, but the spirit of our faith itself.
The End of CHAT GPT’s wisdom.
My views in short
God concept is a man-made concept and will evanesce into transparent nothingness in future when Homo Sapiens will start living in other planets- be it in solar system or in some other galaxies.