Daniel B. LeeCalifornia State University Channel Islands

Maria of the Oak:

Society and the Problem of Divine Intervention

Abstract

Maria of the Oak is a religious shrine located within an ancient grove of oaks in

Germany. Thousands of religious pilgrims visit the site each year because of the “healing

and helping power” of a legendary oak tree. This paper analyzes the content of written

documents left by visitors and discusses the religious function and form of society that is

reproduced. From the perspective of social systems theory, religion appears to use this

specific location to structure personal expressions of the sacred into a relatively organized

but freely developing chain of communication that is devoted to solving the problem of

recognizing and steering divine intervention. Maria of the Oak functions when the social

system of religion successfully shifts responsibility for experiencing divine intervention

from itself to individual believers. This shifting creates the opportunity for religion to

inform itself with the other-reference of cooperating pilgrims, without breeching its own

operational closure.

Citation:

Lee, Daniel B. “Maria of the Oak: Society and the Problem of Divine Intervention. Sociology of Religion (forthcoming).

Maria of the Oak:

Society and the Problem of Divine Intervention

In his introduction to a forum on religion and place, Rhys Williams states that “In

the study of religion, place may be integral” (2005:239). He continues: “Sacred spaces, as

literal locations, are at the center of many human religious and spiritual systems. And for

many peoples, these locations are part of the ‘natural world’… There are ‘landscapes of

the sacred’ (Lane 2001) that show a deep association between aspects of the natural

world and religious expression.” Williams’s interest in the social significance of sacred

locations is shared by an increasing number of scholars of religion (Gilliat-Ray 2005;

Nelson 2005; Woodard 2006). For instance, Crispin Paine suggests: “What we need now

is much more study of people, how we imagine special places, how we agree to define

them, why we want them, how we behave toward them. Particularly interesting are those

places that attract more than one understanding” (2006:111). Paine draws our attention to

the question of how people negotiate definitions and different understandings of sacred

places. How do different people come to share the meaning of a special place? How does

“a people” organize the variety of individual imaginations about the nature of a place?

When Williams speaks of sacred places as being integral and at the center of human

religious and spiritual systems, he seems to sidestep the “more than one understanding”

quandary. How are scholars of religion and society able to observe what we might call

the centering process of religious and spiritual systems? Are there as many sacred centers

as there are people? Williams chooses to use the word “system” with reference to both

2

religion and spirituality. Both types of systems, he suggests, are centered by sacred

places. However, Williams does not explain what he means with the concept of system,

how a system emerges, how spiritual systems relate to religious systems, and how

different types of systems can both be centered in space. It seems likely that Williams

uses the term system in a casual and uncritical fashion, as do many sociologists, without

feeling the need to elaborate on these issues. But if we take the concept of system

seriously, can we come closer to explaining the questions raised by Paine?

This paper uses the approach of contemporary social systems theory (Luhmann

1995, 1997) to investigate Maria Eich, Maria of the Oak, a religious shrine located within

a grove of trees in Germany that attracts thousands of religious pilgrims every year. This

paper explains how Maria of the Oak represents a setting in the commons, in the midst of

nature, where individual pilgrims cooperate in making society and the sacred visible.

Data gathered at the site helps unravel the mystery of how society helps individuals

meaningfully express their private experience of the sacred. Borrowing the words of

Paine, Maria of the Oak is a place which undeniably “attracts more than one

understanding.” Nonetheless, it is a site that also demonstrates the improbable

connectivity of religious communication and society’s ability to reproduce itself without

a center.

Maria of the Oak is described in these pages as a production of folk or vernacular

religion (Yoder 1974; Priamiano 1995; Bowman 2003). In Leonard Priamiano’s opinion,

vernacular religion includes “the verbal, behavioral, and material expressions of religious

belief…” (1995:44). For Marion Bowman, “A vernacular religious approach stresses the

importance of the geographical and cultural context in which belief and practice occur, as

3

well as understanding the dynamic and all-encompassing nature of religion” (2003:286).

Maria of the Oak is marked by the active role pilgrims play in reproducing the site’s

appeal and spiritual power: they read and write texts addressed to Maria that are left at

the shrine.

Although the shrine is immediately adjacent to a Catholic chapel that is

maintained by a handful of resident Augustine monks, the written contributions of

pilgrims are virtually unregulated by priests. This paper provides a content analysis of

these “folk” contributions and concludes that visitors are drawn to the site because of the

shared opportunity to observe and participate in what will be described as religious

communication, or religion as a social system (Luhmann 2000). In the case of Maria of

the Oak, religion appears as a system of communication that grows in complexity and

social significance with each new written contribution. The site illustrates folk religion in

David Yoder’s sense: “Folk religion is the totality of all those views and practices of

religion that exist among the people apart from and alongside the strictly theological and

liturgical forms of the official religion” (1974:14). For Yoder, folk religion is “relatively

unorganized” and “exists in a complex society in relation to and in tension with”

organized religion (1974:11).

This investigation provides a glimpse of how the social system of religion uses a

specific location to structure personal expressions of the sacred into a relatively organized

but freely developing chain of communication that is devoted to solving the problem of

divine intervention. The idea that God is able and willing to help people cope with even

the most trivial and mundane problems of life finds support in the doctrine of providentia

specialis. God has a divine plan that is developing along a previously established general

4

course, but according to this doctrine it still makes sense for individual people to ask him,

as Niklas Luhmann relates, “to end wars, heal sickness, protect ships at sea, and to stop

the mice from gnawing on the carrots” (2005a:245). If God is willing to extend his help,

how does one communicate with him and explain what needs to be done? If divine

intervention is experienced, how can one communicate gratitude?

The data presented here was collected by the author during twenty observational

visits to Maria of the Oak over a two-year period. Pilgrims were observed visiting the

site, writing, posting, reading written prayers, and also kneeling and praying inside the

church. While interviews were not used to gather significant material, the author did gain

background information by interviewing approximately ten visitors to the chapel and

meeting with a monk who oversees the monastery’s archives. Fieldwork focused on

documenting and analyzing the actual operations involved in the selective reproduction

of religious communication at the site (Lee and Brosziewski 2007). The author performed

an unobtrusive content analysis of approximately 500 letters written to Maria and God.

Letters that would have required any manipulation by touch or the turning of pages were

not examined. Any posted items that were covered by others, folded, put inside

envelopes, or stuck underneath ceiling boards, door, or window frames were also not

examined, although visiting pilgrims were frequently observed handling and

repositioning one another’s texts. The author also examined Ex Voto artwork and

devotional gifts hanging inside the church building. At different stages in time, the

artwork and notes posted on the walls and ceiling were photographed. Using a high-

resolution digital camera, it was possible to effectively photograph a wall of notes and

later enlarge individual items for interpretive analysis. To gain a comparative

5

appreciation for the unique quality of Maria of the Oak, the author also visited five other

Marian shrines in Bavaria.1

MARIA OF THE OAK: A THRESHOLD FOR PILGRIMS

There is a wealth of research devoted to understanding why religious pilgrims

travel to locations such as Maria of the Oak, scholarship that helps explain the value of

sacred places for both individuals and society (Stoddard and Morinis 1997; Coleman and

Elsner 1995; Coleman and Eade 2005; Carroll 1999). In the opinion of Eade and Sallnow

(1991:24), religious pilgrims tend to share a common motivation for journeying to a

shrine, which is “to request some favor of God or the shrine divinity in return for simply

having made the journey or for engaging in ancillary devotional exercises.” “Religious

pilgrimage,” Maria Lee and Sidney Nolan assert, “is a timeless aspect of human

behavior” (1989:xix). In their research on European pilgrimages, the Nolans emphasize

the importance of pre-Christian and ecclesiastically unrecognized practices. They note

the continued cultural significance of natural elements such as trees, springs, caves, and

rocks at European shrines. Contemporary pilgrims, the Nolans conclude, appear attracted

to many of the same elements that appealed to pre-Christian worshippers.

As the Nolans argue, a pilgrimage site does not necessarily require theological or

ecclesiastical support in order to attract visitors. Marion Bowman argues that the focus of

1 A number of writers have published historical or devotional portraits of Maria of the Oak (Bock 1998

[1859]; Seitz 1880; Friedel 1979; Schnell 1972; Pfister, et al. 1989). Characteristic Ex Voto paintings from

Cloister Andechs, a well-known pilgrimage site in the same region of Bavaria, are reproduced in a book by

Almut Amereller (1994).

6

understanding vernacular religion must be fixed “on what people actually believe, and

how they actually behave, how this is expressed in everyday life, rather than on some

idealized notion of what they should be believing or doing. This is the context in which

cultural tradition, informal transmission and personal experience of efficacy, are likely to

be as important as authoritative texts or the opinions of religious professionals.” (2003:

286). At Maria of the Oak, the authoritative texts, religious opinions, and testimonies of

Maria’s efficacy are contributed entirely by non-professionals. Sophie Galliat-Ray

(2005:368) describes the roles “formal religion,” dogma, and priests play in the

“processes of sacralization” at officially recognized places of worship, such as churches,

temples, and mosques. She notes that such processes of sacralization rarely occur at

sacred spaces in the public sphere. In contrast, sacralization in the commons takes place

“because of the private, interior, and often painful efforts of individuals” struggling to

address “crucial questions about life, death, and meaning.”

Understanding the attraction of Maria of the Oak as a pilgrimage site involves an

appreciation of four different cultural resources that are produced by communication: the

figure of Maria, the figure of the Oak, the semantic legacy of the Catholic Church, and

the ability of pilgrims to actively participate in the flow of religious communication. The

value of each of these resources will be discussed below.

Situated about twenty miles south of the Bavarian city of Munich, “Maria of the

Oak” has served as a popular Marian shrine for more than 250 years. The faithful

typically visit the chapel to pray, but many also come to enjoy the quiet beauty of the

location. The monastery is situated in the Kreuzlinger Forest, a public recreational area,

in the midst of a grove of ancient oak trees. Maria of the Oak is a unique Marian shrine in

7

that the object of attraction is a particular giant oak. According to historical narratives,

two young sons of a local ironsmith originally made a simple statue of Mother Maria in

1710. They placed their statue, only twenty centimeters tall, inside the hollow of an old

oak tree. Across the Bavarian countryside, similar statues of Maria and baby Jesus, or of

Jesus hanging on the cross, are ubiquitous. One may expect to find them situated in

fields, at crossroads, at the entrance to a town, along pilgrimage routes, and hanging on

houses and barns. It is related that the “Little Lady of the Oak” was eventually forgotten,

and was nearly swallowed up by the growing tree. One day two girls came upon the

barely visible statue. The girls, who happened to suffer from a terrible illness, got on their

knees and asked Maria to help them regain their health. Maria hat geholfen! Maria

helped! To express his gratitude, the father of the girls built a simple wooden chapel in

front of the oak. He carefully freed the figure of Maria from the trunk’s grasp and placed

it inside the chapel.

Today, pilgrims who seek “the Mother of Grace, Maria of the Oak” find her

situated on the altar of a much more permanent, but still very small church building that

was built in 1958 and enlarged in 1966. Directly behind the altar and its famous statue—

separated by a wall—the trunk of the ancient oak tree remains, sheltered within its own

special sanctuary. To visit the tree, pilgrims must use a small door outside of the church.

Racks of burning devotional candles surround the entrance to a tiny room in which the

massive trunk of the oak marks the center. Sheets of plate glass encase the tree so that it

cannot be touched. The trunk rises from the floor and passes into a large hole in the

ceiling. Daylight enters the room through a small round window. Many hundreds of cards

and letters cover the walls and ceiling of the room, dispatches written on paper of

8

different colors and sizes. While nearly every one is addressed to Maria, a few are

addressed to God.

When visitors to Maria of the Oak write or read letters asking for supernatural

assistance, they make reference to a longstanding semantic project devoted to describing

the helpful character of Maria. This historical project is chronicled by the Roman

Catholic Church in the form of archived texts written by saints, popes, and theologians.

For instance, in a document entitled, “We can Count on Maria’s Intercession,” Pope John

Paul II acknowledges the effectiveness of Marian shrines and writes that Maria’s

“maternal heart cannot remain indifferent to the material and spiritual distress of her

children” (1997). Writing at about the time the two aforementioned Bavarian boys placed

their iron statue of Maria within the old oak tree, Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

(1931:136-7) explained the special advantage enjoyed by those who call upon Maria’s

help:

St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, says this: “When we pray to the Mother of

God we are heard more quickly than when we call directly on the name of Jesus

—for her Son is not only our Lord but our Judge. But when we call on the name

of His Mother, though our own merits will not insure an answer, yet her merits

intercede for us and we are answered.” This does not mean that Maria is more

powerful than her Son to save us. We know that Jesus is our only Savior, and that

he alone by His merits has obtained and will obtain salvation for us.

However, when we have recourse to Jesus, we regard Him at the same

time as our Judge, whose business it is to chastise ungrateful souls. Therefore the

confidence necessary before we can be heard may fail us. When we go to Maria,

9

however, she has no other office but to show compassion as Mother of Mercy,

and to defend us as our advocate. Hence our confidence is more easily aroused

and is often greater than when we go directly to Jesus.

Many things are asked of God and are not granted; they are asked of Maria

and are obtained not because she is more powerful than God, but simply because

God decrees to honor her in this way…

How quickly this good Mother helps all who pray to her! She not only

runs, but flies, to our assistance.

De Liguori’s quasi-psychological account of petitioning for divine assistance is especially

illuminating because it alludes to openness and contingency. The individual may pray to

God, to Jesus, or to Maria; but a selection must be made in any case. Though they may

disapprove of the veneration of saints, contemporary Catholic theologians remain aware

that Maria herself has been and continues to be worshiped (Oberroeder 2006:26). In

Bavaria, a rich theological discourse is joined by traditional religious folklore to project a

clear image of Maria: though she watches from heaven, she remains involved with

everything immanent. She knows that God’s children want the good things in life: the

nuts and bolts of health, wealth, peace, and social standing. The everyday concerns of

men and women in this life appear too small and mundane to attract the attention of God.

In contrast, “Maria helps.”

That Maria has the power to help is a constant theme at Maria of the Oak. One

finds the two words carved or painted on benches outside the church. Framed signs

bearing the words, “Maria hilft,” can be purchased in the gift shop. The same words

appear as a mantra on nearly every note written to Maria. Hanging on the walls in the

10

church, dozens of paintings, both old and new, depict terrible events and include the same

assertion: “Maria helps” or “Maria helped.” There is, for instance, a painting of a man

trapped underneath a horse drawn cart. Another image shows a woman lying sick in bed.

There is a painting of a motorcycle crash. A soldier lies low in a trench. Another

illustrates an air raid, with bombers flying over burning buildings. A survivor of the

Dachau concentration camp presented a colorful illustration of the prison: Maria helped

him as well. Maria even came down to save a buck from getting killed by a hunting party.

In each painting, an iconographic, stereotypical image of Maria and baby Jesus is placed

in a superior position, overlooking the scene. She presides over every crisis, sharing her

physical presence with those who suffer. In addition to paintings, individuals helped by

Maria also leave devotional gifts in the church. One may see, for example, several framed

collections of silver ornaments that represent body parts that Maria helped to heal. The

tarnished pieces of metal are cast in the shape of body parts: an eye, leg, feet, breasts,

heart, or ear. One may see silver models of children, husbands and wives, and even

domestic animals. After Maria helps, one may thank her by purchasing and leaving such

a gift inside the church.

An analysis of texts left at Maria of the Oak focuses attention on a fundamental

problem of religion: how can transcendent power make an immanent difference without

destroying the barrier between God and humanity? (see Luhmann 2000:108).2 Whenever 2 From Luhmann’s perspective, the social system of religion operates by processing and connecting

distinctions based on the binary code of transcendence/immanence. One must keep in mind that his

attention is devoted to the unity of the difference between these two values. It is this two-sided distinction,

not transcendence per se, which is relevant in his sociology of religion (see Luhmann 2005b:252).

Observations of the sacred make the common claim that transcendence has temporarily become immanent.

The meaning of transcendence depends on the presence of immanence, and vice versa (see Luhmann

11

Maria helps, she reveals and repeals the boundary between the immanent and the

transcendent. Maria (and the great oak!) is in heaven and on earth in one and the same

moment, and it is precisely this paradoxical being-here-and-there-at-once that gives each

one of her appearances its sacred quality. Niklas Luhmann asserts (2000:82-3) that the

sacred condenses on the border between the known and unknown, and that this mystery

“sabotages” the distinction upon which religion is based. From this vantage point, Maria

may be described as a saintly saboteur, repeatedly marking and performing the sacred by

puncturing temporary holes in the wall that separates mortals from the divine.

In his influential work on religious pilgrims, Victor Turner remarks that those

who travel to shrines pursue the goal of discovering “a threshold,” a liminal space that is

“in and out of time.” At the site they are confronted with “sequences of sacred objects”

and they “participate in symbolic activities” that are believed to be efficacious in

changing the inner and “sometimes, hopefully, outer condition from sin to grace, or

sickness to health” (1973:214). Turner writes that the health and integrality of the

individual is indissoluble from the peace and harmony of the community” (1973:218). At

Maria of the Oak it is the community of pilgrims that charges the threshold with a

working spiritual energy that can effectively change lives. An established community of

authors and readers shares responsibility for recognizing and sustaining the space as a

sacred threshold. How this works in practice will be described in detail when we turn our

attention to the letters. Before we do that, let us explore the symbolic appeal of the oak

tree.

Maria of the Oak represents a remarkable syncretism. Long before Christian

missionaries taught the pagan Germans to ask Maria for help, the ancient Roman

2005b:259).

12

historian Tacitus reported that the Germans were worshipping oak trees. Tacitus writes

that the Germans “deem it to be inconsistent with the majesty of their gods to confine

them within walls or to represent them after any similitude of a human face; they dedicate

groves and woods and call by the name of gods that invisible thing which they see only

with the eye of faith” (Chadwick 1900:29). The Germans associated oaks with the power

of Thor, their god of war and used the oak (Donareiche), to symbolize the political

authority of tribal chiefs. Relying on Roman observers such as Tactitus, Munroe

Chadwick relates that the sacred oak tree was a special place of assembly for the

Germans. It marked the location at which the entire community gathered for important

social events and therefore became the primary symbol of their political unity (Chadwick

1900:30). Writing in 1831, Jacob Grimm argued that the sacred significance of the oak

for the Germans is related to its special capacity to conduct the giant-killing energy of

Thor’s lightening bolt. In his work, Teutonic Mythology, Grimm asserts that the ancient

Germans used the same word for temple and wood or “grove sanctuary,” believing that

their gods lived in the trees (Taylor 1974:79, 140).

Pagan German pilgrims wandered great distances to visit and venerate the most

impressive of their Donar Oaks. In the course of bringing Christianity to the Germans in

the 6th Century, Saint Bonifatius, who was canonized as the “apostle of the Germans,”

sent soldiers to strategically search out and destroy the most powerful of these trees (von

Padberg 2003). He used beams made from a Donar Oak to build the first Christian chapel

at Fritzlar in northern Hessen, naming it St. Peters. Pagan tribesmen burned this same

chapel as a sacrilege in 732. At Maria of the Oak, an ancient tree still expresses a sacred

juncture between the earth and sky. On the ceiling of the chapel there is a large mural of

13

the two brothers inserting their statue of Maria into a hollow of the tree. The oak is firmly

rooted in the ground; but its trunk sends branches stretching into heaven, and Maria and

her baby make a radiant appearance high up among its leaves. For contemporary pilgrims

to Maria of the Oak, Maria and the tree seem to do their sacred work together. As Grimm

might have guessed, the oak’s crown was in fact cut down by a tremendous bolt of

lightening. Maria and the oak are divine figures who share the same identity-in-

difference. They may both be described as “sacred saboteurs” who establish temporary

connections between heaven and earth by rupturing the boundary that creates the very

possibility of religion (Luhmann 2000:82-3).

The Germans are not alone in their veneration of trees, a fact that has fascinated a

number of scholars (Tylor 1874; Frazer 1923; Mazar 2000; Gold 2002; Shutova 2006). In

a study of artificially constructed sacred trees in Japan, Nold Egenter (1981:191) suggests

that “the spiritual in man’s relation to the tree is actually traceable to lost culture.”

Egenter’s “gesunkenes Kulturgut” or survivalist approach comprises one of the four

elements of Don Yoder’s influential definition of folk religion, the particular aspect in

which “folk religion is essentially the survivals, in an official religious context, of beliefs

and behavior inherited from earlier stages of the culture’s development” (1974:12).3 In

his classic work, The Sacred and the Profane, Mircea Eliade suggests that the image of

the tree was chosen to “symbolize the cosmos” and to “express life, youth, immortality,

wisdom. In other words, the tree came to express everything that religious man regarded

as pre-eminently real and sacred” (1959:149). In his typology of sacred trees, Amots

3 Yoder (1974:14) arrives at his definition of folk religion, quoted in the text of this paper, by combining

four component elements that he finds folklorists of religion have commonly identified to be their subject

matter: cultural survivals, syncretisms, superstitions, and localisms.

14

Dafni proposes a practical working definition of sacred trees as “trees that are subjected

to practical manifestations of worship, adoration, and/or veneration that are not practised

with ordinary trees,” including single trees, groves, forests, or all the specimens of a

certain botanical species (Dafni 2006:2). Donald J. Hughes and M.D. Subhash Chandran

combine elements of spirituality and ecology when they define “sacred groves around the

earth” as “segments of landscape containing trees and other forms of life and

geographical features that are delimited and protected by human activities, believing that

preserving such a patch of vegetation in a relatively undisturbed state is necessary for

expressing one’s relation to the divine or to nature” (1998:869). The sacred oak described

in this paper fits both of these definitions. The grove of impressive ancient and young

oaks surrounding the shrine of Maria of the Oak is protected by state environmental

regulations. The oak that represents the liminal threshold inside the shrine is “subjected to

practical manifestations” of a singular variety, which will now be described.

LETTERS TO HEAVEN

During a typical visit to Maria of the Oak, one may count approximately 1500

items attached to the walls and ceilings of the room that houses the tree. An exact count is

difficult to make because the letters are stacked several layers thick in many places. The

total number also fluctuates over time, as one of the monks occasionally removes items

and “takes them to Rome or to another holy place.” About 1000 items are hand written

letters addressed to Maria. Some of these notes are very brief, containing just a short line

or two, while others are several pages in length. Letters are written in many languages,

including German, Polish, Dutch, French, Italian, and Korean. Many are signed or

15

include abbreviations of the author’s name, and it is not uncommon for authors to leave

their photographs. About fifty of the items are simple wooden plaques, evidently

purchased in the gift shop, bearing the same inscription: “Maria Helps.” There are also

about fifty items framed behind glass. The frames contain paintings, drawings, portraits,

needlework, or neatly written text messages. Nearly 425 printed postcards portray Maria,

while many other cards show images of Jesus, Angels, or photographs of other

pilgrimage sites. It is worth noting that if one removed every single letter, postcard,

photograph, and framed item, the walls of the room would still contain at least another

thousand messages written in pen or pencil directly on the walls and interior woodwork.

This spiritual graffiti is similar in content to the notes written on normal paper.

One may quickly distinguish two broad categories of items that use text as a

medium of expression. First, there are items that reiterate, in a generalized and

stereotypical manner, the basic assertion that “Maria helps.” Nearly every single item

includes this context shaping claim, and many contain nothing more. Second, there are

items that refer to specific instances in which Maria helped or in which her help is

requested. This latter category presents messages that relate the past and future in

different ways. On the one hand, a note may be left now to get a specific instance of help

later. On the other hand, a note may be left now to thank Maria for a specific instance of

help she bestowed in the past. It appears that the inspecific claims function as context

shaping devices that cultivate the general expectation among readers and writers that

specific requests can and will be granted (Heritage 1998:3). Maria herself, of course,

must already know when and how she intervened. Yet many letters include the following

pair of sentences: “Maria helped. Please help again.” This pattern seems to indicate that

16

the author hopes to obtain future assistance by claiming, in writing that will be read and

understood by others—including Maria—that divine assistance was given in the past and

that this helping act did not go unnoticed.

Many authors exhibit a pattern of posting successive notes, a specific request

matched with a subsequent sign of thanks. There are also authors who leave a general

note asking for help, and then return many times to write down successive dates on which

help was given. This function of context renewing notes may be seen in the following

example:

Maria helped. A thousand thanks to her.

12.5.01 17.06.01

14.9.02 11.2.03

It is very common for authors to list the specific dates on which they received assistance.

This seems to follow the tradition of including dates within Ex Voto paintings.

Documented with a date, Maria makes her appearance as an actual event or operation in

which she becomes temporally immanent at a given time and place.

Within the category of letters referring to specific instances of help (requested or

granted), one may further distinguish between typical or repeated circumstances of need,

and those that appear rather unusual or idiosyncratic. The problems described in most of

the notes incite sympathy in readers without causing surprise: they describe a wide

variety of normal tragedies and familiar crises. Among letters that describe specific

problems for which help is requested, requests for health are especially prevalent. For

example, the same author left two different notes, before and after receiving help:

Dear God,

17

Please make me completely healthy. Make it so that the tumor will get smaller,

disappear, and never come again. Please let me have good test results after my

operation. Thank you.

Dear God,

Thank you, you are beside me. I received very good results. Please continue to

protect me. Thank you.

Another author relates that people are maliciously trying to label her as a sick person:

“Help me. At work they are trying to portray me as mentally ill, as part of a plot to fire

me.” Many visitors ask Maria to care for their relatives and friends during surgeries,

medical examinations, or hospital stays. Authors frequently specify exactly which body

part needs to be healed: a localized cancer, a bad left hip, a tooth, a heart.

In addition to health problems, Maria is also asked to solve common relationship

troubles within families. The following pilgrims demonstrate this theme:

I wish that my father would love me and that he stays healthy.

I wish that my mother would not drink so much any more and that you will

protect my whole family and all of my friends. And also all of the people in

heaven. Thank you. Amen.

Please grant my grandmother health and many more beautiful, satisfying years.

She is and always was more of a family member to me than my own parents ever

could be. Please prevent her from having to suffer physically. Thank you.

18

I pray that we will be able to start planning our family in November, 2002. I hope

that by November 2003 we will be enjoying our lives as a little family.

Many of the faithful come to Maria of the Oak for help solving problems with their love

life. They may be lonely and searching for a partner, worried about holding on to a

partnership, disturbed about a partnership that is no longer romantic, or interested in

recovering a lover who has gone astray:

Please, dear Mother of God, give me the gift of a good, loving, and faithful

husband!

I would like to ask that my friend proposes marriage to me as soon as possible, so

that there will be something in my life that makes me really happy.

I know that I do not pray very often, but you understand that people always come

for your help when they have problems. That is why I ask you to help Teresa and

I find our way back to each other again. I thank you for your help.

Please make it so that Frank will love me like he did before. Keep us both in good

health and let us master this life. Thanks. Amen.

Other writers pray that Maria will give a wife or a husband, boyfriend or girlfriend, to

somebody they believe needs one.

In addition to such typical problems relating to illness, family, and love, Maria

receives written requests for financial assistance and help relating to career success:

Oh, Maria, help! Please take me out of this financial crisis! Thanks!

19

Dear Maria, Mother of God, Madonna,

Please help me and make my broken arm better again.

Let my new cd be a huge success so that I will finally find happiness and peace.

I believe in you. In love, yours.

Please help Silke find a good job. She deserves it because she believes in you and

she has helped me so much.

Visitors to Maria of the Oak also ask for assistance with their legal problems, as this

computer generated letter shows:

I pray for protection from the German justice system. It its over-zealousness, it is

proving to be less infallible than the pope.

Maria certainly accepts requests for success in educational endeavors. Many individuals

write to her in order to get better grades in school or to pass an examination:

Dear Holy Mother of God,

On Friday, 22.4, I have my final examination. Afterwards I will be finished with

my training as a teacher’s aide. Please help me get a passing grade in my oral

exam. I really hope for this very much. Please let Susanna and I get good enough

grades on our finals!

Thank you!

It is common for pilgrims to ask Maria to help other people succeed in school:

20

I beg you for a passing grade on the next exam and that she can go on to this

school and then study. Thank you. Thank you.

Please help my son Karl get a better grade in German so that he will not fail the

course.

Numerous notes left at Maria of the Oak refer to a combination of problems. In

the following letters, for instance, authors address a variety of otherwise unrelated

troubles:

Holy Mother, Maria of the Oak,

Help me get healthy, to find work, and to get out of my money crisis. Also, that

my daughter will become reasonable and that everything will come to a good end.

And that she will do better in school.

Dear God and Maria,

I pray for my mother, that she will get hair again. And also that David and I will

always get A, B, and C grades in school so that we will get into gymnasium. And

that my whole family stays healthy and that the poor will always get enough to eat

and drink and that Gabriel will love me.

Dear Maria,

I pray that you will comfort the relatives of those who died in the indescribably

gruesome attack on September 11, 2001. Please protect this world from a war and

let me be healthy next year so that I can return to my favorite school.

21

Other letters are much more focused in scope, describing a particular need and using a

minimum number of words. The majority of letters to Maria, however, are many pages in

length, with each page covered in tiny lines of penmanship. One may also find letters that

demonstrate an apparent attempt to add artistic or poetic expression. Some pilgrims

arrange their sentences on the paper as if they were verses in a poem, and many decorate

their lines with colorful ink, adhesive stickers, metallic glitter, or other eye-catching

ornaments. For instance, the following framed note was written in gold ink on blue paper

and includes the image of a gold flower below the text:

An Expression of Thanks to the Loving Mother of God:

The dog came and bit me,

My hand was in danger.

Through your marvelous help, oh Mother of God,

It became healthy,

And wonderful again.

Eternal thanks be given to you, oh most loving Mother of God.

From your spiritual child, Marianne.

While some writers choose to use calligraphy and an especially decorative style, others

write in a barely legible manner, or type or print their notes with a computer. One pilgrim

to the site, for example, used a thick black felt pen to write directly on top of a purchased

photograph of a statue of Maria and baby Jesus. The thick lines of ink completely cover

the photograph, transforming the image into stationary:

O Holy Mother of God,

22

I am so thankful for your help on 27.10.95. Please help me now after my difficult

illness, that I will successfully be able to start my business and that I will stay

healthy. Please help me financially by letting me win big playing the state lottery.

And let me soon see the therapist at Bad Oltendorf again.

Other letters reveal a person’s need for help in making a major decision in life. This form

of letter draws attention to the significant difference between two related problems:

identifying potential alternatives and determining a plausible reason to make or actualize

a specific selection. If one presents Maria with a set of available possibilities, it appears

that she will inform one how to make the right decision.

Reading the many letters posted by pilgrims at Maria of the Oak, one occasionally

stumbles on unusual requests; for a win while gambling, for instance. Maria is also asked

to interfere in a sporting match:

Dear Maria,

Grant our handball team luck and victory.

It is normal for visitors to leave gifts with their letters, as previously related. Some gifts

are predictable, such as rosaries, crucifixes, or wooden carvings. One pilgrim, however,

wrapped his prayer request around a new package of organic tobacco. He apparently did

not want Maria’s help to stop smoking, but was operating under the assumption that

Maria might enjoy rolling her own cigarettes.

OPERATIONAL CLOSURE OF SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS

23

A systems theoretical analysis of Maria of the Oak can help explain why Rhys

Williams is correct with his claim that place is integral for both religious and spiritual

systems. Such an analysis can also contribute answers to the sociological questions raised

by Crispin Paine concerning how different people may or may not arrive at a shared

understanding of sacred places and how they can meaningfully behave with reference to

them. In the following pages, a few basic concepts from systems theory are introduced

with these goals in mind.

A sociological analysis of Maria of the Oak might begin with the expectation that

communication should not lead to any understanding among participants.

Communication is improbable, as Niklas Luhmann argues, because participating pilgrims

are “operationally closed” to one another (1981). Individual people process meaning as

conscious thoughts: they operate as “psychic systems.” One may think about trees, rocks,

food, gods, other people, and countless other self-constructions, but an individual may

not escape the psychic medium of consciousness. Signaling an explicit departure from

classical “old European semantics” in sociology (Luhmann 1997:874), this implies that

individual psychic systems cannot share thoughts, experience intersubjectivity, or inform

themselves with a mutually accessible collective conscience. Every psychic system

represents an intransparent black box to every other. We may see people operate, but we

cannot see their motivations, interpretations, information processing, or how they connect

their thoughts (Lee 2007). When Williams mentions “spiritual systems,” we do not know

if he wants to indicate spiritually inclined people (believers, souls) or religious systems

that are somehow, in a very vague sense, not religious but spiritual. If Williams means

the latter, then the problem of explaining how individuals can share the meaning of

24

sacred space is further confounded by the use of ambiguous terms. For the purposes of

this analysis, we will decide that he means the former: spiritual systems represent

individual believers, what systems theory would call psychic systems. In other words, the

question at hand is how can a place be integral for both psychic systems and a religious

system? An adequate answer must account for any demonstrated agreement or

association between operationally closed psychic systems and any agreement between

psychic systems and the system of religion. Before we can continue this line of inquiry,

let us turn to religion as a social system.

When we analyze society’s own division of labor, we observe operationally

closed societal systems emerging as each one separately performs and connects

successive communicative operations according to its own functional code. Society

comprises a unity of such independently operating parallel processors of communication.

Functional systems create and coordinate specialized solutions for specialized problems

within the medium of communication, producing a polycontextural world (Luhmann

2000:284; Lee 2005). Thus, religion is one functional system among others. The

functional system of the economy operates as an oscillator between profit and loss, for

instance, with both sides of this distinction latently available for producing meaningful

operations. Meaning is defined as the difference between these two sides of a functional

code, a difference that informs an observer why an actual selection is not the product of

pure chance or coincidence. The education system refers to the two-sided form of

pass/fail; the justice system refers to legal/illegal; the system of science processes

communication with the form true/false. For its part, religion operates by drawing a self-

referential distinction between the immanent and transcendent and employing other-

25

reference to meaningfully indicate one side or the other of this distinction. Religious

operations, in other words, oscillate between the temporal and the eternal, this side and

the other, the known and unknown. Each alternative selection is prepared to take

communication in a different direction, depending upon the choice made. For the system

of religion, other psychic systems and other social systems (economy, politics, family,

law, etc.) make up a self-constructed environment. Operational closure is a consequence

of the difference between a system and its environment. The system of religion looks to

the spiritual systems in its environment for the other-reference it needs in order to operate

and make decisions using its self-referential code.

At Maria of the Oak, different psychic systems participate in religion as a system

of communication. They write about Maria’s sacred intervention, and in so doing they

refer to a generalized distinction—transcendent/immanent—that supplies religious

meaning to their claims (Luhmann 2005b:250). Did Maria help this pilgrim? Did she

become an immanent and active operator in this world? As writers inform their readers

about these questions, they participate in society in an organized and meaningful way

despite being both operationally closed to each other and to the system of religion.

Communicative operations that unfold at Maria of the Oak suggest discipline, constraint,

and order. Contributions from men and women are absolutely necessary sources of

information for the system of religion, but those who want to participate must conform to

the requisite simplicity of an established and culturally stabilized program. A sociological

interpretation of the content and form of letters can only be made after this point is clear:

Maria of the Oak organizes the variety of religious experience. Maria is ready to help, but

she only helps those who are willing to experience her help under certain constraining

26

conditions. This point becomes clear when we imagine the countless ways in which

pilgrims could possibly behave at the shrine if they did not submit to the established

order.

Why write a letter and put it near an oak tree? Why not put letters near the

original image of Maria, the one standing on the altar inside the little church? Why not

address a letter to the sacred tree? A systems theoretical approach to empirical practice

takes a keen interest in what could have happened but did not. For example, considering

the traditional form of the Eucharist, Niklas Luhmann ponders (2000:118): “If wine and

bread are not available, why not use beer and bananas?” Though it may sound irreverent,

openness to variety and contingency builds a genuine appreciation for unique social

practices and is of strategic importance for identifying normal routines and accounting for

cultural redundancies. Pilgrims to Maria of the Oak are free to exhibit their spirituality as

they please. One could make space for one’s own letter by removing those posted by

others; one could break the glass and carve one’s note directly into the tree; or one could

simply talk to the tree. However, if a pilgrim wants to take advantage of the opportunity

to participate in a meaningful manner, he or she must understand the structural limits of

the ritual and follow the recognized rules (Lee 2005). If they will submit to the system,

religion can help psychic systems achieve an improbable understanding and inform one

another through communication. For prepared observers religion becomes visible at

Maria’s tree. It is the place to which writers and readers go to inform themselves with the

socially conditioned, culturally limited spirituality of others (Goldenweiser 1913).

Religious communication reproduces itself in a meaningful manner at Maria of

the Oak according to three identifiable conditions which I describe below. If they want to

27

appear as participants, pilgrims are compelled to associate or refer every new operation to

those that were completed in the past, a condition that gives Maria of the Oak the quality

of being “in and out of time.” The flow of communication in the past shapes the direction

communication can take in the future, allowing the renewal of a meaning-giving context.

Each letter to Maria represents a different operation, but each pilgrim aims to achieve

understanding from readers through disciplined conformity to the same communicative

form. As with any familiar myth that is retold in a creative and spontaneous manner, the

structure of the narrative is bound to appear as a redundancy. Thus, in the first condition,

letters at Maria of the Oak are written and posted in a simple, predictable, and rule

oriented manner. They use language in the form of text, are specifically addressed to

Maria or God, and they make reference to the context shaping semantic tradition: “Maria

helps.” Letters must be posted on the walls or ceiling of the tiny room in which the oak

tree stands. As with the custom of Ex Voto paintings, as Almut Amereller relates

(1994:39), those who receive divine intervention are obligated to express their gratitude

in a public manner at the appropriate pilgrimage site, “under the eyes of the other

believers.” At Maria of the Oak, the system of religion conditions pilgrims, showing them

how to express their spirituality in a writing performance that has a chance to

meaningfully inform other pilgrims.

In the second condition, each letter writer must inform readers if he or she is

requesting help or expressing thanks for help that was already received. The former

possibility invites a sacred intervention, while the latter documents that a sacred

intervention was personally experienced. Requests and acknowledgements must both

refer to the possibility of experiencing the difference Maria or God’s intervention can

28

make in solving an immanent problem. By reading the recursive network of letters

already posted near the tree, writers teach themselves how to contribute new letters which

confirm and renew the context of the established standard. The mass of existing letters

points to the overwhelming success of the conventional formula. It is possible for each

new note to deviate or conform, but the correspondence assembled at Maria of the Oak

demonstrates overwhelming uniformity.

Document after document gives testimony to the fact that Maria helps and that

Maria will help again. If Maria can help solve a problem, however, she must also be able

to refuse help. The meaning of asking her and thanking her for intervention implies that

she is an observer who chooses to help and that she could also refrain from helping.

Therefore, in the third necessary condition, letter writers are obligated to connect the

meaning of their utterance in a form of meaning that has two sides: Maria helps/Maria

does not help (see Luhmann 2001). Of course, participants may prefer to ignore the

negative possibility of the form, but the problem remains that although one may be able

to motivate Maria to make a choice—to help or not to help—one cannot take her

selection for granted. Maria may never have denied a request for help, but it would not

make sense to thank Maria for interceding if she does not have the chance to refuse.

Actually helping men and women requires Mother Maria to become an actor in this

world. Every time she opts for assistance, she engages in a selective practice that can take

on meaning only because it did not have to happen. How can one learn to expect the

kinds of problems Maria will decide to solve and those she will decide not to solve? She

may be the potential solution to one’s problem, but learning to manage her willingness to

help is a problem itself. At Maria of the Oak, we observe that it is communication that

29

prepares participants to communicate with Maria. Religion creates its own problem and

provides a functional solution; raising specific expectations, training participants by

setting examples, and showing “black and white” evidence that requests for divine

intervention are indeed fulfilled.

Maria of the Oak is a popular pilgrimage site, but it is safe to say that many

Catholics in Munich have not made a point of visiting the place. The chapel is open to

every visitor, but those who come must motivate themselves to do so. After all, it is

secluded in a forest. Those who travel there must already intend, as Søren Kierkegaard

put it, to make a leap of faith toward the sacred. They must come with the intention of

participating in the emergence of religion. This is an important point because the site’s

isolation helps increase Maria’s plausibility as a powerful source of assistance. People

without faith do not go into the sacred grove. The isolation of the chapel helps shield a

letter writing pilgrim from having to face readers who might question, reject, or disagree

with their claim. Letters are written and then writers vanish back into the woods. In

contrast, participants in typical religious services may use their co-presence to challenge

one another’s testimonies. They can voice suspicion or reject one another’s assertions. At

Maria of the Oak, authors never have to interact with readers who claim that Maria did

not really intervene as claimed. They leave their letters to an absent companion, and they

are absent when their readers are present. As a sacred place, the oak tree is integral for

spiritual systems and the system of religion because it locates authors and readers who

hope religious communication will make a difference in their lives. As Amereller relates

(1994:39), pilgrims know that they are expected to request and give thanks for divine

intervention at this particular place in the commons, under the eyes of other believers.

30

Letters are addressed to Maria, but they must be presented for the public to read. By

leaving a letter at the tree, a pilgrim can expect that other observers will eventually come

and expect to recognize his contribution to religion.

INTERPENETRATION: MARIA NEEDS PILGRIMS

Marion Bowman observes that “Religion can have an effect on what one eats,

how one dresses, with whom one socializes, how resources are used; in short, how

everyday life is conducted and construed” (2003:286). Bowman’s point is that food,

clothing, land, sex, business, violence, animals, light, music, and all sorts of phenomena

can potentially be invested with religious meaning. This openness to variety creates a

problem for religion as a social system: if everything can be associated with the sacred,

how can anything at all be sacred? At Maria of the Oak we may observe practices that

solve this problem by reducing and organizing variety with the help of other-reference

supplied to religion by pilgrims. Maria of the Oak depends on an environment that

includes people—spiritual systems—who have a requisite variety of problems (Ashby

1957). Letter writing pilgrims must be willing to condition the structure of their

utterances so that messages have a chance of becoming meaningful for letter-reading

pilgrims. In order to mark its own boundaries at this location, the system of religion

needs writers to specify how and when Maria helped them, or how she should help them.

Pilgrims may need her help, but she needs their problems. Maria of the Oak organizes the

micro-diversity available from individual believers, turning them into authors who make

specific informational claims with the requisite simplicity religion needs in order to

reproduce its special form of social connectivity (Ngo Mai and Raybaut 1996). For the

31

system of religion, Maria of the Oak is an integral place because pilgrims go there to

contribute the recognizable information that allows religious communication to

differentiate itself from the rest of society.

As outlined above, the extreme openness of religion poses a challenge to the

social system of religion. If everything can be invested with transcendent meaning, how

can the difference between the transcendent and the immanent ever be observed? The

letters we find at Maria of the Oak, along with the depictions of Ex Voto art, represent a

phenomenological solution to the ambiguous symmetry of religion’s operating code. The

religious system offers its self-referential two-sided distinction, transcendent/immanent,

but it must allow individual writers to make their own indications according to their

spiritual experience and personal beliefs. As Luhmann argues (2000:93), the binary

structure of a function code does not determine which value, the positive or negative, will

be marked in a particular operation. If a believer experiences Maria intervening to heal a

tumor, then that experience may lead him to write a note of thanks. His note specifies that

a sacred event occurred and, when properly posted at the tree, reproduces religion

whenever readers connect his information with all other claims of intervention. He does

not thank the influence of a doctor, chemo-therapy, vitamins, or his own good fortune: it

was transcendent power that made his cancer disappear. He connects his request for help

with the delivery of divine assistance; the delivery of assistance with the need to write a

note of gratitude. At Maria of the Oak, his note joins more than a thousand others that

share its form. This pilgrim did not find a girlfriend because of his own charming

persistence, Maria set him up. This visitor to the shrine did not pass her biology

examination because she studied, Maria prevented her from failing. The phenomenology

32

of religion’s code involves an inherent dependence of religion on the internal complexity,

the “Eigen-complexity,” of individual believers. To resolve the ambiguity of its code,

religion needs contributions from the faithful.4 From a systems theoretical perspective, as

Domenico Tosini points out, the relevance and “specificity of each human being” is

“emphatically recognized and depends on its own operational closure with respect to

society; indeed the existence of human beings remains a crucial requirement for society

itself” (2006:547).

Maria of the Oak functions when the social system of religion successfully shifts

responsibility for experiencing divine intervention from itself to individual believers.

This shifting creates the opportunity for religion to inform itself with other-reference,

without breeching its operational closure. Systems theory uses the concept of

“penetration” when a “system makes its own complexity (and with it indeterminacy,

contingency, and the pressure to select) available for constructing another system…

Accordingly, interpenetration exists when this occurs reciprocally, that is, when both

systems enable each other by introducing their own already-constituted complexity into

each other” (Luhmann 1995:213). Countless pilgrims have invested mental energy into

Maria of the Oak, offering their inner complexity to Maria in a socially organized manner

that she can accept. With its archive of textual utterances, the tree appears to be cathected

with the social energy of religion. This energy penetrates pilgrims who open themselves

to Maria’s own complexity. It is up to a psychic system, a spiritual system, to experience

4 These contributions from religion’s environment provide the “outer determination” (Spencer Brown 1979)

that injects movement and meaning into the system. “No system,” as Peter Fuchs asserts, “has its own

meaning” (2004:48). Each functional system presents its binary code and allows observers to inform

themselves and make their own selections.

33

the immanent-and-transcendent difference Maria can make. The system of religion can

only offer spiritual systems an undecided binary code: did Maria help or not? Did the

transcendent become immanent? One after another, having resolved the symmetry of the

distinction in their own mind, observers of the sacred become authors who demonstrate

the interpenetration of spiritual systems with the system of religion.

Religion is the functional system of society that builds itself by connecting, as

links in a chain, each and every reference to the difference between the transcendent and

immanent. To make its chain, however, the religion needs the spiritual systems of men

and women to make specific contributions of information. It takes participants to

indicate, considering all that happens, which events represent an imaginary juncture

between the immanent and the transcendent. This connectivity of observations is what we

may observe in practice at Maria of the Oak and why it appears evident, as Rhys

Williams claims, that place may be integral for both spiritual and religious systems. It is

the place where different types of systems can share complexity and demonstrate their

interpenetration.

At the sacred place investigated here, vernacular religion continues to produce

accounts of divine intervention within contemporary society. Participating pilgrims

corroborate one another’s testimonies that everything is virtually religious and everything

that happens reflects God’s will. Getting a better job can indicate the helping hand of

God. Getting a boyfriend and winning the lottery and graduating from high school and

escaping the police and getting a good deal on eBay can all be attributed to divine power.

Asking for Maria’s help appears to be the functional equivalent for studying, working

hard, saving money, getting a lawyer, taking medicine, hiring an agent, and buying red

34

roses. In a functionally differentiated society Maria is able to do it all.5 A secular observer

releases control of the economy, education, law, politics, health, love, and the family to

those systems themselves. The multiple functions of Maria, however, demonstrate the

reentry (see Luhmann 2000:26) of functional differentiation on the transcendent side of

religion’s own distinction. In the writings of faithful pilgrims, medical, economic, legal,

educational, and other specialized problems and solutions reappear as religious problems

and solutions. The pilgrim observes a spiritually dedifferentiated form of functional

differentiation: Maria is viewed as the unity of every difference and the super-solution to

every kind of problem. With her multiple functions, Maria appears to sabotage the

autonomy and operational closure of all functional systems. She can solve every problem

with a sacred solution. By visiting Maria of the Oak, at least, pilgrims who respect her

conditions can participate in a society that embraces this possibility.

5 To keep her good reputation, there must certainly be some problems for which Maria will not offer her

help. If responsibility for experiencing the sacred falls to psychic systems, as this paper suggests, then

religion must organize and restrict the claims offered by believers. The archive of notes at Maria of the Oak

present culture in the form of social memory; reader/writers may inform themselves about Maria’s

reputation and learn about the problems she has solved in the past. Culture, then, increases the probability

that a writer will not ask Maria to assist in ways that readers would not expect. Following Fritz Heider

theory of form and medium (1959), the possible problems for which Maria could be expected to help might

be viewed as a set of “loose couplings” available within the medium of divine assistance. The specific form

of help recognizable within a posted note or painting might then be seen as a “tight coupling.” What

practices of censorship help discipline authors and preserve Maria’s character? “Some notes,” a resident

monk related to me, “are tacky (kitchig). Others are tasteless. I take some of them down. This needs to

remain an orderly chapel.”

35

References

Amereller, Almut. 1994. Votiv-Bilder: Volkskunst als Dokument menschlicher Hilfsbeduerftigkeit. Muenchen: Rosenhauer.

Ashby, W. Ross. 1957. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.

Bock, Leo. 1998 [1859]. Das Büchlein von der heiligen Maria in der Eich bei Planegg. Muenchen: Bock.

Bowman, Marion. 2003. “Vernacular Religion and Nature: The ‘Bible of the Folk’ Tradition in Newfoundland.” Folklore 114:285-295.

Carroll, Michael P. 1999. Irish Pilgrimage: Holy Wells and Popular Catholic Devotion. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Chadwich, H. Munroe. 1900. “The Oak and the Thunder-God.” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 30:22-44.

Coleman, Simon and John Elsner. 1995. Pilgrimage: Past and Present in the World Religions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, Simon and John Eade. 2005. Reframing Pilgrimage. Cultures in Motion. London: Routledge.

Dafni, Amots. 2006. “On the Typology and the Worship Status of Sacred Trees with aSpecial Reference to the Middle East.” Journal of Ethnobiology and

Ethnomedicine 2(26):1-14.

Eade, John and Michael J. Sallnow. 1991. Contesting the Sacred: The Anthropology of Christian Pilgrimage. London: Routledge.

Egenter, Nold. 1981. “The Sacred Trees around Goshonai/Japan.” Asian Folklore Studies 40(2):191-212.

Eliade Mircea. 1959. The Sacred and the Profane New York: Harcourt, Brance & World.

Frazer, James George. 1922. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. New York: Macmillan.

Friedel, Josef. 1979. Maria Eich: Geschichte einer kleinen Wallfahrt. Aalen-Ebnat: Katholische Pfarramt.

Fuchs, Peter. 2004. Der Sinn der Beobachtung. Weilerswist: Velbrueck.

36

Gillian-Ray, Sophie. 2005. Sacred Space in the Millenium Dome. Journal of Contemporary Religion 20(3):357-372.

Gold, Ann Grodzins. 2002. “Children and Trees in North India.” Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion 6(3):276-299.

Goldenweiser, Alexander A. 1913. “The Principle of Limited Possibilities in the Development of Culture.” Journal of American Folklore 26:259-290.

Heider, Fritz. 1959. On Perception and Event Structure, and the Psychological Environment. New York: International Universities Press.

Heritage, John. 1998. “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-Taking Systems.” Pp. 3-17 in Proceedings of the 6th International Congresss of IADA (International Association for Dialog Analysis). Edited by Světla Cmejrková, Jana Hoffmannová, Olga Müllerová, and Jindra Svetlá. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Hughes, Donald J., and M.D. Subhash Chandran. 1998. Sacred Groves around the Earth: an Overview. Pp.869-876 in Conserving the Sacred for Biodiversity. Edited by: P.S. Ramakrishnan, K.G. Saxena, and V. Chanderashekara. New Delhi: Oxford and JBH Publishing.

Lane, Belden C. 2001. Landscapes of the Sacred: Geography and Narrative in American Spirituality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Lee, Daniel B. and Achim Brosziewski. 2007. “Participant Observation and Systems Theory: Theorizing the Ground.” Soziale Welt. 58: 255-269.

Lee, Daniel B. 2000. “The Society of Society: The Grand Finale of Niklas Luhmann.” Sociological Theory. 18:318-328.

-----. 2005. “Ritual and the Social Meaning and Meaninglessness of Religion.” Soziale Welt 56:7-18.

-----.2007. “Observing Communication: Niklas Luhmann and the Problem of Ethnography.” Soziale Systeme: Zeitschrift fuer Soziologische Theorie. 13:454-465.

de Liguori, Alphonsus Maria. 1931. The Glories of Mary. Brooklyn, NY: Redemptorist Fathers.

Luhmann, Niklas. 1981. “The Improbability of Communication.” International Social Science Journal 23:122-132.

----. 1995. Social Systems. Palo Alto: Stanford.

37

----. 1997. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

----. 2000. Die Religion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

----. 2001. “Die Paradoxie der Form.“ Pp. 243-61 in Aufsaetze und Reden. Stuttgart: Reklam.

----. 2005a. “Laesst unsere Gesellschaft Kommunikation mit Gott zu?“ Pp.241-249 in Soziologische Aufklaerung, IV. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

----.2005b. “Die Unterscheidung Gottes.“ Pp. 250-268 in Soziologische Aufklaerung, IV. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Mazur, Amihai. 2000. “A Sacred Tree in the Chalcolithic Shrine at En Gedi: A Suggestion.” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 18:31-36.

Nelson, Louis P. 2005. American Sanctuary: Understanding Sacred Spaces. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Ngo Mai, Stéphane and Alain Raybaut. 1996. “Microdiversity and Macro-Order: Toward a Self-Organization Approach.” Revue Internationale de Systémique 10:223-239.

Nolan, Mary Lee and Sidney Nolan. 1989. Christian Pilgrmage in Modern Western Europe. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1989.

Oberroeder, Wolfgang. 2006. “Maria kommen viele Ehrentitel zu.” Muenchner Kirchenzeitung. April 30, pp. 26.

Paine, Crispin. 2006. “Whose Sacred Place? Response to Jane Samson.” Material Religion 2(1):109-111.

Paul II, Pope John. 1997. “We can Count on Maria’s Intercession.” L'Osservatore Romano (Weekly Edition in English). November 12, pp. 11.

Pfister, Peter, Hans Ramisch and Wolf-Christian von der Muelbe. 1989. Marienwallfahrten im Erzbistum Muenchen und Freising. Regensburg: Pustet.

Priamiano, Leonard N. 1995. “Vernacular Religion and the Search for Method.” Western Folklore 54:37-56.

Rountree, Kathryn. 2002. “Goddess Pilgrims as Tourists: Inscribing the Body through Sacred Travel.” Sociology of Religion 63(4): 475-496.

Schnell, Hugo. 1972. Maria Eich. Muenchen: Schnell & Steiner.

Shutova, Nadezhda. 2006. “Trees in Udmurt Religion.” Antiquity 80:318-327.

38

Seitz, Ludwig. 1880. Maria Eich: Geschichtliche Darstellung ueber den Ursprung und die Verbreitung der Wallfahrt in Maria Eich. Muenchen: Stahl.

Spencer Brown, George. 1979. Laws of Form. New York: Dutton.

Stoddard, Robert H. and E. Alan Morinis. 1997. Sacred Places, Sacred Spaces: the Geography of Pilgrimages. Baton Rougue: Lousiana State University.

Taylor, John Walter. “Tree Worship.” Mankind Quarterly 20:79-141.

Tosini, Dominico. 2006. “Medium as a Basic Concept of Sociology: Contributions from Systems Theory.” Social Science Information 45(4):539-560.

Turner, Victor. 1973. “The Center out There: A Pilgrim’s Goal.” History of Religion 12(3):191-230.

Tylor, Edward B. 1874. Primitive Culture: Research into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom. Boston: Estes and Lauriat.

von Padberg, Lutz E. 2003. Bonifatius. Missionar und Reformer. München: Beck.

Williams, Rhys. 2005. “Introduction to a Forum on Religious and Place.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44(3):239-242.

Woodard, Roger C. 2006. Indo-European Sacred Space: Vedic and Roman Cult. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Yoder, Don. 1974. “Toward a Definition of Folk Religion.” Western Folklore 33(1):2-15.

39