Has Noah’s Ark Been Found? The Ongoing Search

Brief Overview

• The search for Noah’s Ark remains one of the most compelling archaeological and spiritual quests in human history, drawing researchers, explorers, and believers from around the world.
• Most searches for the Ark focus on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey, based on the biblical account in Genesis 8:4 which states the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
• Despite numerous expeditions and claims over the centuries, no conclusive archaeological evidence of the Ark has been verified by mainstream scholarly communities.
• The Catholic Church teaches that the Genesis flood account conveys spiritual and moral truths about God’s judgment and mercy rather than requiring a literal historical account of every detail.
• Modern scientific investigations, satellite imagery, and archaeological surveys have examined various sites claimed to contain the Ark, yet none have produced definitive proof.
• Understanding the search for Noah’s Ark helps Catholics appreciate both the value of faith and reason, as emphasized by the Church’s intellectual tradition.

The Biblical Account and Its Significance

The story of Noah’s Ark appears prominently in the early chapters of Genesis and carries deep spiritual meaning for Catholics and all Christians. The account describes how God chose Noah to build a massive vessel to preserve humanity and animal life during a divinely sent flood that would cleanse the earth of wickedness. Genesis 6:14-16 provides specific dimensions for the Ark, describing it as approximately four hundred fifty feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high, with three decks and a window for light. The biblical narrative emphasizes God’s mercy and justice, showing how divine providence protected the righteous remnant while judging human sin. Catholics understand this story as part of the revealed truth of Scripture, though the Church allows for different interpretations about the literal versus symbolic nature of certain details. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the trustworthiness of Scripture while acknowledging that ancient texts express truth in ways suited to their cultural context (CCC 109-110). The Ark itself becomes a symbol of salvation and God’s protective care throughout Christian tradition. Many Church fathers and theologians have interpreted the Ark as prefiguring the Church itself, which carries the faithful through the turbulent waters of this world toward salvation. The spiritual significance of the Ark extends beyond its historical reality to encompass lessons about obedience, faith, and God’s redemptive plan. This theological dimension remains central to Catholic understanding of the Noah narrative, regardless of the outcome of physical searches.

Mount Ararat and the Geographic Location

The traditional location for searching Noah’s Ark centers on Mount Ararat, a volcanic peak located in eastern Turkey near the borders of Armenia and Iran. The biblical text in Genesis 8:4 states that the Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat following the flood, establishing this geographic reference as the primary focus for explorers and researchers. Mount Ararat rises to approximately 16,945 feet above sea level and presents significant challenges for exploration due to its harsh climate, remote location, and difficult terrain. The mountain sits in a region with complex geopolitical considerations, making access and excavation efforts subject to various governmental permissions and restrictions. Archaeological surveys in the area have identified various rock formations, ancient structures, and geological features that have captured the attention of researchers seeking evidence of the Ark. However, the extreme altitude, severe weather conditions, and harsh seasonal changes create obstacles for sustained scientific investigation on the mountain’s slopes. Mount Ararat has been considered sacred in Armenian Christian tradition for centuries, with monasteries and spiritual sites in the surrounding region reflecting centuries of pilgrimage and reverence. The specific mention of Ararat in Scripture made this location the natural focal point for those seeking physical evidence, though scholars debate whether ancient geographical terminology necessarily corresponds to the modern mountain by that name. Expeditions to Mount Ararat have typically focused on its northern and western slopes, areas thought most likely to harbor remains based on geological analysis and historical accounts. The persistent interest in Mount Ararat demonstrates how biblical geography continues to inspire modern exploration and scientific inquiry.

Historical Search Efforts and Expeditions

Organized searches for Noah’s Ark began in earnest during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as transportation and technology improved. Early explorers relied on local guides, oral traditions, and reports from inhabitants of the region to direct their investigations up Mount Ararat and its surrounding areas. In 1916, a Russian pilot reported seeing a large wooden structure high on the mountain, generating considerable interest in search efforts, though the account could never be verified with certainty. Numerous expeditions throughout the mid-twentieth century combined climbing expertise with basic archaeological methods to investigate promising sites and geological formations. The 1977 expedition by Robert Ballard and Porcher Taylor generated significant media attention when they discovered what appeared to be an anomalous structure beneath glacial ice. Subsequent investigations using ground-penetrating radar and other remote sensing technologies suggested various underground formations that required careful study and analysis. These technological advances allowed researchers to examine areas without extensive excavation, reducing environmental impact on the mountain’s ecosystem. Many of these historical expeditions were documented in books, documentaries, and news reports that sparked public interest and speculation about the Ark’s location. However, scientific scrutiny of these discoveries revealed that most could be explained through natural geological processes or misidentification of ordinary rock formations. The multitude of search efforts, though often unsuccessful in finding the Ark, contributed valuable knowledge about the region’s geology, history, and cultural significance.

Satellite Imagery and Modern Technology

Contemporary searches for Noah’s Ark benefit from technological advances that would have seemed miraculous to earlier explorers who climbed the mountain with simple equipment. Satellite imagery has allowed researchers to examine large areas of Mount Ararat and surrounding regions without physical presence on the ground, dramatically expanding the scope of investigation. Ground-penetrating radar has been employed to search beneath glacial ice and rocky terrain for structures that might remain hidden from surface observation. Thermal imaging technology helps researchers identify anomalies in rock formations and surface features that could indicate unusual structures or artifacts. Three-dimensional mapping and geological surveys create detailed pictures of the terrain, enabling scientists to predict where large objects might be preserved given the region’s climate and geological history. Sonar technology has been adapted for use in underwater investigations, as some researchers theorize that remnants of the Ark might rest beneath the surface of underground or glacial lakes in the region. These technological approaches represent a significant shift from the exploratory methodology of earlier centuries, replacing adventure-based searching with systematic scientific investigation. Despite these advanced tools, the harsh environment of Mount Ararat remains challenging for sustained technological observation and data collection. The expense of deploying sophisticated equipment in such remote and difficult terrain limits how frequently and extensively these investigations can occur. Nonetheless, technology continues to evolve, offering new possibilities for future search efforts and more sophisticated analysis of previously discovered anomalies.

The Scientific Consensus on Archaeological Evidence

The mainstream scientific and archaeological community has not accepted any of the proposed sites or artifacts as conclusive evidence of Noah’s Ark’s existence or location. Professional archaeologists emphasize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no discovery to date meets the rigorous standards of archaeological verification. The field of archaeology operates according to specific protocols for authentication, documentation, and peer review that help ensure that findings can be replicated and examined by other qualified scholars. Many claimed discoveries have been examined by independent archaeologists who concluded that the evidence could be explained through natural processes or misidentification of ordinary geological phenomena. The scientific method requires that proposed evidence be subjected to scrutiny and testing by multiple independent researchers before broad acceptance within the scholarly community. Publication in peer-reviewed journals remains the standard mechanism for establishing credibility and legitimacy within the archaeological profession. Most professional archaeologists maintain a measured skepticism about claims of finding the Ark, while remaining open to evidence that meets established standards of proof. The absence of definitive archaeological evidence does not necessarily disprove the historical occurrence of a major flood event, as geological evidence does suggest significant flooding in ancient Mesopotamia. However, connecting such geological events to the specific biblical account requires evidence beyond what archaeology has currently produced. This scientific restraint reflects not skepticism about faith or Scripture, but rather the commitment to rigorous methodology that characterizes responsible scholarship.

Geological and Hydrological Considerations

The geological and environmental conditions of Mount Ararat present both opportunities and challenges for preserving potential evidence of the Ark. The mountain’s high altitude and extreme climate create conditions of perpetual snow and ice in upper elevations, which under certain circumstances can preserve organic materials for extended periods. However, the same glacial processes that might preserve wooden structures also create significant stress and pressure that can destroy or fragment ancient materials over centuries. The mountain experiences geological instability, including occasional seismic activity and landslides that could have either buried or destroyed ancient structures. Water flow from glacial melt and seasonal precipitation creates erosive forces that gradually break down materials exposed on the surface or in the upper soil layers. The permafrost conditions in higher elevations would have slowed decomposition processes significantly, potentially allowing wood to survive longer than in warmer climates. Conversely, the intense UV radiation at extreme altitudes accelerates the degradation of organic materials when they are exposed to sunlight. The complex interplay of these geological factors means that while preservation of ancient wood is theoretically possible, degradation and destruction are equally plausible outcomes. Scientific geologists studying Mount Ararat have determined that the mountain’s geological history would not necessarily favor the preservation of large wooden structures over millennia. Understanding these geological realities helps explain why searches have not produced conclusive evidence, even if we assume the Ark existed and reached the mountain.

Interpreting the Genesis Flood in Catholic Theology

The Catholic Church’s approach to the Genesis flood account balances affirmation of Scripture’s truth with recognition that biblical texts use various literary forms and cultural contexts to convey divine revelation. The Catechism teaches that Scripture is the word of God and possesses inherent truth, yet this truth is expressed through human authors writing for their own time and using the literary conventions of their era (CCC 105-106). Catholic theologians and biblical scholars recognize that the flood account appears in different ancient Near Eastern texts and traditions, suggesting that this event held cultural and spiritual significance across the ancient world. The Church affirms that a major flood event likely occurred in ancient human history, as geological evidence and ancient texts from multiple cultures reference such catastrophic flooding. However, Catholic teaching does not require that every detail in Genesis be interpreted as strictly literal or scientifically precise in modern terms. The primary theological purpose of the flood narrative centers on communicating spiritual truths about God’s justice, human sinfulness, and divine mercy rather than providing a scientific account of climatic conditions. Many Catholic biblical scholars understand the numbers, dimensions, and timeline given in Genesis as expressions of theological significance rather than exact historical data. This interpretive approach does not diminish the truth or authority of Scripture but rather honors the nature of divine revelation communicated through human language and cultural frameworks. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on Divine Revelation affirmed this nuanced understanding of biblical interpretation, encouraging scholars to study the historical and cultural contexts of sacred texts (CCC 109-119). This theological perspective allows Catholics to maintain profound faith in Scripture while remaining open to scientific inquiry about historical and geological questions.

Ancient Flood Accounts and Cultural Context

Ancient civilizations throughout Mesopotamia, the Near East, and beyond recorded flood narratives that predate or parallel the biblical account in Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh, one of humanity’s oldest known literary works, contains a detailed flood account that shares significant similarities with the Noah story recorded in Scripture. Archaeological discoveries in ancient Mesopotamian ruins have uncovered clay tablets documenting these flood traditions, revealing that such narratives held central importance in multiple ancient cultures. These parallel accounts suggest that either a significant historical flood event shaped the collective memory of ancient peoples or that flood narratives served important theological and cultural functions across diverse societies. The biblical flood account draws upon the cultural and literary frameworks familiar to ancient Hebrew writers while infusing these elements with unique theological significance centered on covenant and redemption. Understanding these cultural contexts helps Catholics appreciate how Scripture communicates divine truth through forms and conventions that ancient audiences would recognize and understand. The presence of flood narratives across multiple cultures does not diminish the truth of the biblical account but rather illustrates how God’s revelation worked through human experience and cultural understanding. Ancient peoples, living closer to the land and subject to dramatic natural events, would naturally interpret significant flooding as manifestations of divine power and judgment. These flood traditions carried moral lessons about human conduct, divine providence, and the consequences of abandoning right relationship with the transcendent. The comparative study of ancient flood accounts enriches our understanding of the cultural world in which the Hebrew scriptures took written form.

The Role of Faith and Reason in the Search

The search for Noah’s Ark represents an interesting intersection of faith and reason, two dimensions of human knowledge that Catholic theology understands as harmonious rather than antagonistic. The Church teaches that human reason constitutes a genuine path toward truth about the natural world, while faith represents knowledge communicated through divine revelation (CCC 31-38). Catholics believe that truth cannot contradict truth; therefore, genuine scientific findings and authentic faith commitments cannot ultimately conflict with one another. Those who undertake searches for physical evidence of biblical events often do so motivated by faith in Scripture’s trustworthiness and a desire to confirm through physical evidence what faith affirms. However, the rigorous methodology required by responsible science demands that claims be subjected to verification and scrutiny regardless of the searcher’s motivation or faith convictions. The Catholic intellectual tradition, enriched by thinkers from Augustine to Aquinas to modern scholars, affirms that believers should engage seriously with scientific and historical investigation. This engagement does not represent a failure of faith but rather a fulfillment of the human capacity to wonder about creation and seek understanding. The fact that searches have not yet produced definitive archaeological evidence of the Ark need not trouble the faith of Catholics who trust in Scripture’s spiritual truth. Conversely, genuine scientific inquiry into historical and archaeological questions represents a legitimate expression of human reason operating within its proper sphere. The ongoing search for Noah’s Ark thus exemplifies how believers can maintain robust faith while engaging honestly with the findings and methods of modern scholarship.

Previously Claimed Discoveries and Their Outcomes

Over the decades, various expeditions have claimed to discover evidence of Noah’s Ark, each announcement generating considerable media interest and public excitement. The 1977 discovery of an anomalous structure beneath glacial ice on Mount Ararat received significant attention and was featured in documentaries and books claiming it represented the Ark’s remains. Subsequent geological and archaeological analysis determined that the structure was most likely a natural rock formation shaped by glacial and erosive processes rather than a human construction. In 2003, satellite imagery appeared to show unusual linear features on Mount Ararat that some interpreted as artificial structures, sparking renewed interest and expedition planning. Expert review of the satellite data concluded that the features represented natural geological formations consistent with the mountain’s known geological history and composition. Various explorers and researchers have reported finding wooden artifacts at different elevations on Mount Ararat, but none of these discoveries proved to be from the biblical era or of the scale required to match the Ark’s described dimensions. In some cases, these artifacts were later identified as remains of more recent human activity, such as shepherd’s huts or portions of structures built in historical times. The consistent pattern of claimed discoveries followed by inconclusive analysis has led to a cautious approach among mainstream archaeologists regarding new announcements about Ark discoveries. Each examination and reexamination of these claimed discoveries has contributed to scientific understanding of the mountain’s geology and the challenges inherent in preserving large wooden structures in such an environment. While none of these discoveries have withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, the ongoing process of investigation and analysis reflects the legitimate scientific interest in exploring historical claims.

Environmental Challenges and Preservation Questions

The extreme environment of Mount Ararat presents formidable obstacles to the preservation of organic materials over thousands of years. Large wooden structures, even those constructed from durable timber as the Ark supposedly was, would face multiple forms of degradation in such conditions. The constant freeze-thaw cycle that occurs in high mountain environments creates stress on wood that can fracture and splinter materials into smaller fragments over centuries. Moisture penetration during spring melt and summer precipitation can lead to fungal growth and bacterial decomposition despite the cold temperatures. The intense ultraviolet radiation at Mount Ararat’s elevation would cause surface degradation of exposed wood, bleaching and weakening the material substantially. Even ice-preserved materials can experience significant deterioration as glaciers move slowly down mountain slopes, subjecting buried objects to grinding and pressure. Oxygen exposure in certain environments can accelerate oxidation processes that degrade wood composition and structural integrity. The weight of accumulated ice and snow over centuries would exert tremendous pressure on any structure beneath it, potentially crushing and compressing wooden beams into unrecognizable configurations. Rock falls and avalanches in the mountain’s unstable terrain could have buried or destroyed structures that might otherwise remain visible. These environmental realities suggest that even if the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, the likelihood of finding intact or easily recognizable remains after millennia of exposure to such harsh conditions remains quite low.

Geographic and Climatic Changes Since Ancient Times

The landscape and climate of the region surrounding Mount Ararat have undergone significant changes since ancient times, complicating efforts to understand where preserved remains might be located. Glacial patterns and snow lines have shifted considerably over the millennia, meaning that areas once at different elevations relative to glacial ice now occupy different positions. Rivers and water systems in the region have changed course significantly throughout history, altering drainage patterns and water flow that might have affected preservation or visibility of structures. Vegetation patterns have evolved due to climatic shifts and human land use changes, modifying the landscape that ancient peoples would have observed. The exact boundaries and extent of ancient lakes and water bodies in the region remain subjects of scholarly debate and investigation. These geographic and climatic changes mean that determining the most likely preservation location requires sophisticated understanding of historical environmental conditions that scholars continue to refine. Ancient geographical references in texts do not always correspond precisely to modern geographic features and place names, creating additional interpretive challenges. The accumulation of sediment and geological deposits over thousands of years has buried and transformed the surface features of the landscape continuously. Understanding how the current geography of Mount Ararat differs from the ancient geography requires collaboration between geologists, climatologists, and biblical scholars. These temporal and spatial complexities help explain why even systematic search efforts have not definitively established the Ark’s preservation location or condition.

The Role of Local Traditions and Indigenous Knowledge

The peoples living in the regions surrounding Mount Ararat have maintained cultural memories and traditions about the mountain and its significance across centuries of history. Local communities have preserved stories about the Ark and the flood that reflect their own interpretations and understandings of the biblical narrative. Armenian Christian tradition in particular has maintained Mount Ararat as a sacred site central to religious identity and spiritual heritage for centuries. Indigenous knowledge about the mountain’s terrain, seasonal patterns, and geographical features can provide valuable information to researchers planning expeditions. Local guides and inhabitants possess practical understanding of the mountain that technical experts from outside the region might lack. However, distinguishing between genuine historical memory and mythological development that occurs over centuries of retelling presents significant challenges for researchers. Folk traditions about the Ark often blend historical claims with legendary elaboration that cannot be easily separated. Respecting and incorporating indigenous perspectives while maintaining scientific rigor requires careful methodological attention to distinguish between cultural significance and archaeological evidence. Local communities often view the search for the Ark through the lens of their own cultural and religious priorities, which may differ from the perspective of external researchers. Collaboration between external scholars and local communities can enrich investigations while ensuring that research respects cultural sensitivities and historical significance.

Modern Expedition Challenges and Access Issues

Contemporary efforts to search for Noah’s Ark face significant practical challenges related to geography, politics, and environmental conditions. Mount Ararat’s location in a politically sensitive region near borders creates complications for obtaining permits and conducting research. Access to the mountain requires permissions from Turkish authorities, and political circumstances have at times restricted or limited exploration activities. The physical difficulty of conducting archaeological or scientific work at high altitudes requires specialized equipment, trained personnel, and substantial financial resources. The brief seasonal window when Mount Ararat is accessible, combined with the extreme physical demands of high-altitude work, severely limits the duration and scope of possible investigations. International collaboration on such expeditions requires coordination across national boundaries and often involves complex diplomatic considerations. Insurance, safety protocols, and environmental protection regulations impose additional requirements on modern expeditions that earlier explorers did not face. The cost of mounting a serious scientific expedition to Mount Ararat places such efforts beyond the resources of most individual researchers or small institutions. Weather conditions can change rapidly at high altitude, creating dangerous situations that interrupt or curtail planned investigations. These practical obstacles mean that systematic and sustained research on Mount Ararat remains logistically complex and requires significant institutional support.

Alternative Theories and Disputed Locations

While Mount Ararat remains the traditional and most popular location for searching Noah’s Ark, some researchers have proposed alternative sites based on different interpretations of geographical references and geological evidence. Some scholars suggest that the Ark might rest in the Caspian Sea basin or other water bodies in the greater Mesopotamian region. Others argue that the ancient geographical designation “Ararat” might refer to regions in Anatolia other than the specific mountain now called Mount Ararat. Certain researchers propose that the Ark could be located in areas now submerged beneath the Mediterranean Sea or other bodies of water. These alternative theories typically rest upon different readings of ancient geography, geological evidence of ancient flooding, or reinterpretations of how biblical geographical references should be understood. Each proposed alternative location requires evaluation based on geological feasibility, archaeological evidence, and biblical textual analysis. The proliferation of competing theories reflects genuine scholarly disagreement about how to integrate biblical texts, geographical knowledge, and scientific evidence. However, none of these alternative theories have generated the level of systematic scientific investigation or produced more convincing evidence than research focused on Mount Ararat. The traditional identification of Mount Ararat remains most consistent with the biblical text and with centuries of Christian tradition. While scholars should remain open to reinterpreting geographical references in light of new evidence, shifting the search location requires exceptionally compelling justification. The persistence of Mount Ararat as the focus of searches reflects both its strongest claim to biblical support and the substantial infrastructure of research and tradition surrounding it.

Scientific Investigation and Peer Review

Responsible scientific research into the Noah’s Ark question requires adherence to established methodological standards and submission of findings to the scrutiny of the scholarly community. Professional archaeologists and historians employ rigorous protocols for excavation, documentation, and analysis that ensure findings can be examined and potentially replicated by other scholars. Claims about significant archaeological discoveries must be published in peer-reviewed journals where other experts in relevant fields can evaluate the evidence and methodology. The peer review process, while imperfect, provides a mechanism for identifying flawed reasoning, insufficient evidence, or alternative explanations that discoverers might have overlooked. Proposals for expensive expeditions to search for the Ark are evaluated by funding agencies and institutions according to scientific merit and feasibility. This systematic approach to evaluating evidence and claims protects the scholarly community from incorporating false or misleading conclusions into the established understanding of history and archaeology. Many exciting reports about Ark discoveries have not survived serious scientific review because the evidence presented did not meet established standards of proof. This does not mean that scientists are biased against religious topics or skeptical of biblical truth, but rather that they apply uniform standards regardless of the religious or cultural significance of a claim. Following these methodological standards serves the cause of truth by preventing the incorporation of false conclusions into scientific knowledge. The cumulative effect of many independent researchers using rigorous methodology strengthens confidence in the overall conclusions that responsible science produces.

The Theological Message Beyond the Historical Question

Regardless of whether archaeological evidence for Noah’s Ark is ever definitively established, the theological significance of the Genesis flood narrative remains central to Catholic faith and biblical understanding. The flood story communicates essential truths about God’s holiness, human sinfulness, and the divine offer of mercy and redemption that form the foundation of Christian theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes that God’s word in Scripture is always true and trustworthy in all matters about which it speaks, whether addressing historical events or spiritual truths (CCC 107-109). The figure of Noah embodies the righteous response to God’s call, demonstrating obedience and faithfulness even when executing apparently inexplicable divine commands. The survival of Noah, his family, and the animals aboard the Ark foreshadows biblical themes of covenant, preservation, and the establishment of God’s continuing relationship with creation. Christian tradition has long understood the Ark as a prefiguration of the Church, which carries the faithful through the turbulent circumstances of earthly life toward the secure harbor of God’s kingdom. These spiritual and theological meanings remain valid and significant whether one understands the flood account as strictly historical narrative or as theological truth expressed through ancient literary conventions. The search for physical evidence of the Ark does not determine whether these theological truths are genuine or significant to faith. Catholics can maintain profound respect for Scripture and unwavering commitment to its truth while remaining genuinely uncertain about particular historical details or willing to hold such matters lightly. The enduring spiritual power of the Noah narrative suggests that its deepest value lies in the truths it reveals about God and human nature rather than in the specific historical particulars of its setting.

Conclusion: Faith, Reason, and Ongoing Questions

The ongoing search for Noah’s Ark represents a fascinating meeting point of faith, history, archaeology, and scientific inquiry that continues to engage researchers and believers worldwide. While definitive archaeological evidence of the Ark has not been established despite centuries of searching and modern technological advances, the absence of such evidence does not diminish the theological truth or biblical authority of the Genesis flood narrative. The Catholic Church’s teaching affirms Scripture’s trustworthiness while allowing for diverse interpretations of historical details and literary forms, creating space for both serious faith and responsible scholarship. The geological and environmental challenges of Mount Ararat, combined with the practical difficulties of conducting research in this remote and politically sensitive region, help explain why searches have not yielded conclusive results. Future technological developments or unexpected discoveries might yet alter our understanding of the Ark’s historical reality, but responsible scholarship maintains measured skepticism about claims lacking rigorous verification. The value of investigations into such questions extends beyond the specific question of the Ark’s existence to include broader reflections on how faith and reason relate to one another and how revelation communicates truth through human culture. The mystery surrounding Noah’s Ark’s preservation or destruction need not trouble believers whose faith rests not on archaeological confirmation but on trust in God’s revelation and providence. Catholics can pursue honest inquiry into historical questions while maintaining deep faith in Scripture’s spiritual truth and theological significance. The search for Noah’s Ark ultimately teaches valuable lessons about the limits of both faith and reason when applied beyond their proper sphere and about the importance of intellectual humility in approaching both ancient texts and natural evidence. Whether future discoveries confirm or continue to elude those seeking the Ark, the theological message of God’s judgment, mercy, and saving action remains eternally relevant to human faith and spiritual life.