Talk:Sabarimala Temple

number of pilgrims
Rajeevsm (below) has a good point. There is one website (external link) that says 5 crores of people make the pilgrimage--I'd never heard the word "crore," but apparently it represents 10 million. I doubt 50 million people visit this place during the 10-day festival. Another site I visited suggested 125,000 per day. I can find no government statistics, and little on the web that offers information about Sabarimala without a strong religious slant. Hope someone more knowledgeable cleans this up.

100 million?
Now article reads "It is the largest annual pilgrimage in the world with an estimated 100 million devotees visiting every year". The first reference does not seem to work and second one says only 50 million http://www.sify.com/news/indo-americans-shocked-at-sabarimala-tragedy-news-international-lbpqadcabij.html BBC in an article mention 50 million visitors. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7415430.stm

But govt site of Pathanathitta district mention only 3-4 million. http://www.pathanamthitta.nic.in/Sabarimala.htm What is the correct number?

GreenOrca (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kerala Police estimates the maximum number of pilgrims per day from the pedestrian capacity of the bottleneck in the trek - the holy 18 steps that pilgrims climb. Policemen are posted on the steps to pull up pilgrims briskly and keep the movement fast. At the rate of 1 pilgrim per second exiting the steps for 24 hours, the total is 86,400 per day. The actual flow is about 2 per second and during the hours the temple is open. It is unlikely that the numbers exceed 125 thousand on the peak day. The Government estimate is correct. The newspaper reports are grossly exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajit Haridas (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

religious controversy?
I came to this page after searching for the recent news item about (Christian) pilgrims being blinded in Erumeli from gazing at the sun, hoping to see the Virgin Mary. A Google search turned up lots of venom, or at least heated discussion, by Hindus directed at Christians. I guess some people feel Sabarimala is contested as a pilgrimage site by various religions. Not trying to start a debate, I just wondered if someone with pertinent historical/cultural knowledge could amplify this article. As it stands, it's a well-meaning but very limited entry. MaterTerribilis (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I have being reading about Sabrimala Controversies in the media and on net for the last many months. Its said that it has also being proved beyond proof its not a miracle just a place to fool the people and loot the funds out of them. the same has being proved by many legal affidavits and the caretakers of the temple itself. But I have some questions for which no where i am getting answers :

1. Every year on the 14th of January, there comes an eagle known as "Krishna Paranthu" which hovers above the Sanidanam. Now who sends this eagle? Does the KSEB Department sends eagle everywhere too in addition to the lighting of the Camphor? The myth is that Eagle in Sanskrit meaning Garuda is the vehicle of Vishnu and Vishnu comes and then the ornaments are taken called as Thirvabharanam and taken to Sanidanam. Eagle may come once a year or twice a year every year at the same place at the same time why does the eagle come does any one have any explanation for this?

2. Why did KSEB start to light this camphor over there ? May be 50 years before or whatever, what made the KSEB do this? Did they do this for the benefit of the Temple Authorities?

3. A fire keeps burning of the coconut which is brought by the devotees. Trees are growing around the fire in a very short distance and are not getting burned ? if such trees are at any normal place, with very low fire trees get burnt and dry, here due to the immense heat also trees are standing as it is and not a single leaf is burnt ? what explanation can be given to this ?

any comments are welcome.

Psagar2007 (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In Paragraph 3, Line 1, it is said: Sabarimala is one of the finest secular places in the world where every human being irrespective of his religion can visit the temple, according to the traditional system.

In Section 'When to go', Paragraph 3, last line, it is said: Tourists and foreigners, as well as women between the ages of 10 and 50 (approximately age at puberty and menopause), are not officially allowed entry to the main temple.

These two statements are contradictory. Sabarimala does not fall in the category of the finest secular place where every human being irrespective of his religion or race or gender can visit the temple. It even has the history of blocking people of other religious communities from entering the temple. Hence the first statement should be taken off or should be modified.

--Rocksea 04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

'''The statement refers to Hindus of all castes. All non-Hindus are untouchables by definition and hence not allowed into temples and other places of importance.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.52.34 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * people of any religion can visit sabarimala. One such example is K. J. Yesudas who is a christian and has been there as a devotee. Women are not alllowed ( Only girls who have not attained womanhood and old women who have reached menopause are allowed ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vij4yd (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

vaavar vaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavarvaavar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naanoruindian (talk • contribs) 03:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

'''This regarding to the statement " Sabarimala is one of the finest secular places in the world where every human being irrespective of his religion can visit the temple, according to the traditional system ".

Ofcourse every human or any human being can visit sabarimala, for example : Vavar ( Vavarswami ) muslim saint, who become a ayyappa devotee, everyone used to go to Erumeli ( Vavar Mosque ) which is located behind the hindu temple to perform Pettathullal, before going to sabarimala.

The history of sabarimala showing that the Vavar is a good friend of Lord ayyappan.

At Sabarimala, the first song, they used to play in the early morning ( 4 A.M ) to wake up Lord ayyappan, which has been called as Ayyappan Subrabhatam was sung by K. J. Yesudas and the another song called Harivarasanam which is sung today at Sabarimala as the Lullaby at night (Urakkupattu) also sung by K. J. Yesudas. K. J. Yesudas is a christian. This indicates that sabarimala and lord ayyappan are apart from religions.'''

SABARIMALA is the holy place,where anyone and everyone can visit and get the blessings of lord ayyappan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naanoruindian (talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ayyappan was celebate?
In Section 'When to go', Paragraph 3, last line, it is said: ..and the fact that the Ayyappan worshipped at Sabarimala is supposed to be a celibate hermit (bachelor). Would like to see some citations regarding this. I remember reading Ayyappan was married. If he got married and then went for celibacy, that should be mentioned.

--Rocksea 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was
I agree with Rocksea's first comment. It is worth noting that Yesudas was prevented due to being Christian, although ironically, his rendition of Harivarasanam is played there.

As for being celibate, that's what I've always been told. Can't find any references, but have never heard that he was married either.

Are the 'How to reach Sabarimala' and 'Distances of various places from Pamba' sections really necessary in this article? The 'When to go' section needs bit of a clean up too. For instance - "wearing a unique black outfit" - I didn't do that.

And of course, add more references! (I know they're hard to find online.)

Polar 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears Ayyappan has a better description of the pilgrimage. Hmm. Polar 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord Ayyappan is not married, May be you can remember.... But no one else...

He is a Bramachari ( celibate ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naanoruindian (talk • contribs) 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

biased entry
this wiki entry on sabarimala does not talk about the environmental damage created by the influx of pilgrims throughout the year. the fact is that this place is within the periyar tiger reserve, which is a fragile ecozone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.232.185 (talk) 16:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

== YESUDAS ==

YESUDAS was never prevented from entering SABARIMALA. Infact he was prevented at Guruvayoor. Sabarimala is only one of the few secular ( as far as religions are concerned) temples in INDIA.

Awarriar 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yesudas was never presented from entering Sabarimala. In contrary, until few years back, he was one of the regular visitors of this temple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.115.4 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The world's second largest annual pilgrimage, after Haj in Mecca, is reported to be to Sabarimala.
In the article its clearly written that crores of devotees come to Sabarimala during the pilgrim season. When i read the article about Hajj, its written that about 2 million pilgrims come to Mecca during the Hajj season.

My humble doubt is:

1. How crores is less than 2 million?

2. Is there any proper estimate or statistics about the number of devotees come to sabarimala each year. Or Wikipedia simply publishing their on opinion?

Rajeev madhavan (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw this entry in Pathanamthitta official website The shrine of Sabarimala is one of the most remote shrines in southern India yet it still draws three to four million pilgrims each year. The estimate 4.5 - 5 crores is hugely exaggerated. Also considering the population of Kerala is only 3.5 crore, the article say Sabarimala gets more people than the entire Kerala. Hmmmm....clear exaggeration. Mathew Joy (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that page pointed out by Mathew Joy is presently unavailable!. but BBC says 50 million . The reason for the disparity i guess would be ;
 * KSA keeping proper attendance record for Hajj unlike Sabarimala.
 * Less popularity of Sabarimala in the global level compared to Hajj.Arjun (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ayyappa temple at chennai, Madipakkam

For those who can not treck in to the holy sabarimala hill,due to old age or any other reason can visit a same like temple for Lord ayyappa at Chennai, Madipakkam ( around 30 years old ), With 18 holy steps - which also open only on those days that sabarimala temple opens. Only along with IRUMUDI KATTU any body can climb up (elevated moolasthanam), to have dharsan of Lord Ayyappa.But female aged between 10 and 50 never gone up, to have dharsan since here also the same rules as in sabarimala is followed till today. It is the first temple out side kerela to have holy 18 steps and follows the same malayala thanthreeha way of performing poojas. Sree Kandararu Neelakantaru, the thanthri of sabarimala, was the chief Thanthri of this temple too. The present Thanthri is Sri Narayana Pandarathil from Adoor Kerala. The temple is managed by Sri Ayyappan temple trust and Sri ayyappan Mandali of Madipakkam. The road leads to this temple is named as SABARI SALAI, and the temple is located in Ayyappa Nagar, Madipakkam.Jumboramakrishnan (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GPS Reference
Has anyone who visited this temple has taken a GPS Reference? I need it locate it on Google Earth.

Tragedies and controversies
Me having spend the first 20 years of my life in Kerala has heard of a couple of major stampedes happening at this temple. One was in 1999 and other in 2011 where more than 50 people have died. Every year when the main season of pilgrimage(mandalakalam) starts there is a hue and cry from the media to improve the facilities over there. The temple as such suffers from gross mismanagement and unhygienic conditions not to mention the severe environmental impacts it has had. It has its fare share of controversies also stemming from the Kannada actress Jayamala case.

There should be a section in the article covering these aspects of the temple too.. Machinist 88 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Kerala High court ban of women entry
The article does not contain any mention of the 1991 Kerala High Court ruling that banned women from entry to Sabarimala. Until then women of all ages were allowed during the monthly poojas. Will be editing the main article to include the details of this. If any editors have any concern, please raise it on talk page here for discussion. Prodigyhk (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC) The link for the high court judgement https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1915943/ Prodigyhk (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Kaushiksv and User:Abhilash Pattathil here in WP, we need to maintain neutral stance. Prior to 1991,although, not many women made the difficult pilgrimage, it is clear from various sources, that Sannidhanam was open for women pilgrims during the monthly pooja. Today, after 25 years, many have forgotten this. It is important that we in WP maintain neutral stance and keep this information open for readers to know. Look forward to reading your response Prodigyhk (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Origins
Have removed the below sentence. Unable to find this information in book cited. And more important, it has no historical basis. Request other editor to discuss here with valid citations. Thanks

→"Until the 10th century AD, the main religions of Kerala were Buddhism and Jainism. During 10th and 12th century AD, Hinduism established itself in Kerala. " Prodigyhk (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Arson by Christian fundamentalists
What is more reliable than Police FIR? It's not even WP:PRIMARY Crawford88 (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't just an issue of reliability, but I'll deal with that first. WP:VERIFY states that "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." The source was a photocopy on a website. It could have been a forgery. It doesn't matter if it's genuine, it isn't reliably published. As for not being primary, WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event;" and I'd argue that the document is a first person report from someone directly involved. It was not made public at the time it was written and no action was taken on the basis of the report. State websites aren't reliable sources for everything they hold either, we've had problems before with various Indian states having material on their websites making conflicting claims. If you can find several news sources or reliably published books discussing this, we can look at them. But the sources used aren't sufficient. Doug Weller  talk 08:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * so in short your argument is in the authenticity of a random photocopy of the FIR. Now, see this. It's from the official state government's website. You can also visit, . Now, coming to the lack of secondary sources.. This event occurred in 1950, 70 years before. I cannot imagine there to be any newspaper article reporting that now. Crawford88 (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Placed on the website years after the event, yes. Still a primary source. That doesn't show it is encyclopedic. I see no evidence that it was actually published as an official report. Or that ie meets WP:UNDUE. You should have much more than that to justify claims that adherents of one religious group burned down the place of worship of another - speaking as one who belongs to no religious group. Doug Weller  talk 11:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Reliably published' disqualifies a source that states clearly that "Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. MyIndMakers is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of MyindMakers and it does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same." Your other source, the Organiser, is apparently a publication by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and again fails our criteria as a source. Doug Weller  talk 11:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Every editorial column in newspaper, however reputed puts that disclaimer about 'accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article'. Also, it's not a wiki policy to exclude such a source. MyIndMakers satisfy WP:RS adequately. Also, how is Organizer not WP:RS? It has no connection with the temple authorities not with the government present at that time. Crawford88 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an editorial column, and "reliably published" is definitely policy. Myindmakers describes itself as a "platform of ideas" and as I've shown doesn't reliable exert editorial control over content. And of course it says "the truth will never be known" - even if it were an RS, and I still say it isn't, are we going to write "The truth will never be known about the 1950 arson" but it's suspected of being done by Christians?" How is the Organiser an RS? It's a Hindu nationalist publication, the interview is with the right-wing Hindu nationlist Kummanam Rajasekharan who seems to think there is an atheist plot involving Muslims and Christians and states as fact that it was Christians who burned the temple. Nothing about that shows either the website or the interview qualifies as an RS. You still haven't found coverage in reliable sources, let alone sufficient coverage.  Doug Weller  talk 10:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I asked you about a wiki-policy which discredits MyIndMakers as WP:RS. There's absolutely nothing in wiki policies which can be applied in this effect. "are we going to write "The truth will never be known about the 1950 arson" but it's suspected of being done by Christians?"" No, but the police investigation points in that direction. Ofcourse, an investigation which was never allowed to reach it's logical conclusion. Organizer being RW Hindu nationalist has got nothing to do with the reliability of the source. Rajasekharan is a reputed local politician. I have serious reservations about your definition of a source being reliable. Does only LW secular post modernist news outlet qualify as WP:RS? Crawford88 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "Reliably published is policy. And for the media, that means editorial control. Go to WP:RSN if you think you can show that it is. Ditto Organiser. Doug Weller  talk 06:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are arguing about this for this long. We have always said that only mainstream news organisations are reliable sources. Organiser is not. Newspaper od-eds are not reliable sources even for mainstream news organisations. They can only be used as WP:PRIMARY sources, to state the views attributable to authors, provided the authors are notable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Menstrual taboo
There are quite a few scholarly articles on this and the temple that might be used. In fact the section on Hinduism in Menstrual taboo really needs work given the large number of academic sources for the subject. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Naming the women; describing them
User:Reginasinclairs your edits here and here named women who tried to enter the template, and distorted the descriptions of Rehana Fathima from the sources, pulling out only one negative fact.

It is debatable as to whether they should be named here (for real - we could do, or could not do, but this will require discussion), but the description of Rehana Fathima based on the sources provided, is not a reasonable summary of the sources and casts her only in a negative light. This is not acceptable under the WP:BLP policy. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP hinges on three polices, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. The edit proposed by User:Reginasinclairs satisfies WP:V and WP:NOR and the remaining WP:NPOV is a moot point. What are your claims on it being voilating neutral POV? Maybe this can be submitted for a dispute resolution ?! Rioter 1 (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPNAME states:


 * "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."
 * Our BLP policy usually trumps any other policy. Doug Weller  talk 14:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Temple belongs to Mala Arayans - not to Hindus
There is a chapter in the Native Life in Travancore written by The REV. SAMUEL MATEER, F.L.S. (published in 1883) titled: The Hill tribes.

This chapter mentions Mala Arayan people who lived on the slopes of the Western ghats (Sahyadris). In this book, the temple at Sabarimala is mentioned as their temple, where they worship their deity Ayyappan. Moreover, it is seen clearly mentioned that they were not Hindus. They considered their god to be of equal to a Hindu god in power, or even higher in capability.

The chapter is lengthy one. A small part is quoted here:

QUOTE: “Talanani was a priest or oracle revealer of the hunting deity, Ayappan, whose chief shrine is in Savarimala, a hill among the Travancore Ghats. The duty of Talanani was to deck himself out, as already described in this book, in his sword, bangles, beads, &c., and highly frenzied with excitement and strong drink, dance in a convulsive horrid fashion before his idols, and reveal in uneathly shrieks what the god had decreed on any particular matter. He belonged to the Hill Arayan village of Erumapara (the rock of the she-buffalo), some eight or nine from Melkavu, and was most devoted to his idolatry, and rather remarkable in his peculiar way of showing his zeal. When the pilgrims from his village used to go to Savarimala — a pilgrimage which is alway, for fear of the tigers and other wild beasts, performed in companies of forty or fifty — our hero would give out that he was not going, and yet when they reached the shrine of their devotions, there before them was the sorcerer, so that he was both famous among his fellows and favoured of the gods.

“Now, while things were in this way, Talanani was killed by the neighbouring Chogans during one of his drunken bouts, and the murderers, burying his body in the depths of the jungle, thought that their crime would never be found out; but the tigers — Ayappan’s dogs — in respect to so true a friend of their master, scratched open the grave, and, removing the corpse, laid it on the ground. The wild elephants found the body, and reverently took it where friends might discover it, and a plague of small-pox having attacked the Chogans, another oracle declared it was sent by Sastavu (the Travancore hill boundary god, called also Chattan or Sattan) in anger at the crime that had been committed; and that the evil would not abate until the murderers made an image of the dead priest and worshipped it. END OF QUOTE

QUOTE 2: Arayans will make offerings to a Hindu god, and that they attend the great feasts occasionally; but in no case do they believe that they are under any obligation to do so, their own spirits being considered fully equal to the Hindu gods. END OF QUOTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D300:267F:921:515B:8204:D01D (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Entry of women to Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What happened to the complex? The lead now reads "Sabarimala Sree Dharmasastha Temple was a temple complex"
It is still there, right? And should we call it that or say "also known as..."? Doug Weller talk 12:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SABARIMALA SREE DHARMA SASTHA TEMPLE is the name of the temple. In ancient times there was only a temple. But now the temple is expanded with other buidlings like valiyanatapanthal, appam counter etc and it became a complex of a set of buildings. So now it is called a temple complex with a temple inside it. What is the problem with that ? --Ranjithsiji (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sabarimala2.jpg
 * removed the image --Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Renaming this article to sabarimala temple
When will it renamed to Sabarimala temple. I will not initiate any request here. Doing something in English wikipedia is the toughest thing in my life now a days --Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Janmabhumi ,the daily newspaper of BJP Kerala on 29th September 2018,welcomed the Supreme court's Shabarimala Women entry verdict.jpg

Lead section cleanup
I would like to summarize and clean up the lead section. The entry of women into the temple judgment is described in detail in the lead section.

Some of the information in the lead section, such as "filing review petitions" and to reconsider the court's decision under Mr. Ranjan Gagoi, is nowhere mentioned in the article. I would like to move that information to "Women" section Buddingboffin (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)