Landscapes of the Sacred #2

The author goes on to discuss the nature of sacred places. They are described as "messy" and "ambiguous." I think that is spot on, especially when taking in to consideration the axioms that are detailed throughout the text. If a sacred space is an ordinary place that becomes extraordinary, is it not then ambiguous? If the sacred place is the storied space, are those stories up for debate? Can and should one derive their own meaning and conclusions from said stories? If one happens upon the sacred space having not heard the stories centered around it, is the place still sacred? Will they experience the place as simply a topos and never a chora? I think the answer to that is ambiguous, deeply depending on whether you subscribe to the idea that the sacred place has meaning because we ascribe meaning to it, or the opposing idea that the place is sacred because it somehow acts as a thresh hold to supernatural forces inherently.