This is a response to the article posted on <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/jacobs.html> entitled ”Virtually Sacred: The performance of Asynchronous Cyber-Rituals in Online Spaces” by Stephen Jacobs. Some concerns regarding the usage of online space as a place for “sacred” practice stem from the support this article gives to the credibility of online churches and temples. The article does not purport (as many do) that the online space provides any additional spiritual awareness/insight, nor does it claim that any new form of spiritual expression has yet come from online worship. However, this article does support the notion that online space can be used by “real” (profane) institutions to express established forms of worship, such as Prayer and Puja. In his conclusion, Jacobs states that, “The Virtual Church can be considered as an extension of the physical church located in geographical space. The Virtual Temple can be considered as being homologous to domestic shrines. In this way, both sites can be considered successful, in that they fulfil the main intent of their designers. However, despite providing a new arena, these examples do not seem to have a particularly significant impact as yet on the way in which sacred space is conceived or ritual is performed.” What is concerning about this conclusion is the fact that sacred space has become intertwined with corporate, or capitalist space. Access to online space is not free, and in fact owned by a litany of communication companies such as Time Warner and Viacom. In assuming that Jacobs has a point, and religious expression can legitimately be expressed online, then is is only rational to see that access to this space is limited, and indeed controlled by money. This new form of religious expression is accessible primarily to those in the first world, who either have enough money to afford their own computer and internet access, or are able to access a public internet station. Either way, someone has to pay for access to the virtual space before one can engage in religious sacrament. This concern may be a shortsighted view, which could be rectified as the internet becomes more ingrained internationally (The Bible was, and is limited to those who can afford the book, and who know how to read, yet it is legitimate), but what refuses to go away is the idea that the technology itself is a limiting factor. What this means is that access to true spirituality should not have to be mediated though man’s creation, and the fact that the technology caps the amount of people involved (through money and access), and the level of understanding (Jacob’s conclusion, which states that at best, the internet replicates existing ideas), means that the technology may itself be a limiting factor in spiritual understanding, and thus should be dismissed when attempting to understand God.
