Religious Materiality and Virtual Sainthood: The Case of Shna Ndou (St. Anthony) Pilgrimage in Laç
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Brief Summary
The paper aims at describing how the religious place Shna Ndou in northern Albania has been shaped materially referring to its history from the foundation up to the deconstruction in socialist time and referring to its revival since the 1990s which is boosted by using new techniques and media (70-74). This article mainly contributes by the connecting historical and ethnographical data and crossing approaches on material and virtual place shaping. Especially, considering virtuality is an outstanding strength for the studies of pilgrimage. Furthermore, this paper contributes to the investigation of the religious history in South Eastern Europe in general, and in Albania in particular, i.e. a region that often is overlooked in religious studies.
General concept comments
The article lacks of some information about the field research the authors conducted in order to collect their data such as the period, the sample, etc. Furthermore, some used terms should be either reflected and/or marked as an expression from the field. Methodological inaccurate is also the description of the visitors.
Specific Comments
The manuscript is well structured: After an introduction (21ff), there are two historical parts. While the first one sheds light on the quite unknown history (“Some historical sketches”, 84ff), the second part outlines the reconstruction since the end of the socialism (“Deconstruction and reconstruction”, 136ff). However, the headlines of both paragraphs are quite unspecific and could be adapted. The following two paragraphs describe first the place as it has been during the field research (“The shrine today: the power of Infrastructures”, 292ff) and then the role of using smartphones by the visitors (“Broadcasting Shna Ndou Sainthood”, 367). The article finishes with “some conclusive remarks” (475ff). However, the sentence with the described aim is too long and can be shortened (69-74). Furthermore, it is unclear why the authors consider the “material religious practices” as “spontaneous” (70). Also, the aim could be a bit reformulated as the authors not only "describe" but "analyze". A research question could be added and the hypotheses could be identified more carefully.
However, in the single paragraphs are some minor aspects to be changed, reflected or added: With respect to the founding of the place, it would be interesting to get some information what the Catholic scholars write about the history of "Shna Ndou", and if there is a document about the foundation (88f). After explaining the historical connection between St Anthony and St Blaise, the last part of the sentence seems to be redundant (96). It is not clear why the book of Kurti (2019) is a useful source worth to mention. The quote (119-123) does not contribute anything to the paragraph headed with "Some historical sketches". The sentence in lines 170f is somewhat unclear, because it reads that the Italian Catholic network intervene in other religious communities. According to the following sentences the argument is that religious communities from abroad have been active in Albania. In the description of the place it is not clear if the road is 3 or 4 kilometres (301-303).
The cited references are mostly relevant, but only a few recent publications. However, the spelling of some authors should be checked (Calyer instead of Clayer, 171; Webner instead of Werbner and Basu?, 412). Since the paper deals with the reconstruction of religious places, one may wonder why the basic ideas of Kim Knott are neglected (see for example: KNOTT, K. 2008. Spatial theory and the study of religion. Religion Compass, 2, 1102-1116.). Furthermore, a newer publication could be considered that contributes to the research of shaping religious places approaching from various perspectives such as religious, touristic, economic and political (see: REUTER, E. 2021. Die Mehrdeutigkeit geteilter religiöser Orte: Eine ethnographische Fallstudie zum Kloster Sveti Naum in Ohrid (Mazedonien). transcript Verlag.)
The photos from the field research give the reader a first impression of the place. However, the order of the figures should be the same as mentioned in the text. Currently, the reference to figure 5 is the first one (314). Also, the placing of the reference "see Figure 3" (375) is confusing because that pictures do not show the quoted ethnographic quote, so it must be put to a more suitable place in the sentence.
Furthermore, in some cases the text should explicitly refer to the figures and interpret what is shown, to connect the written part and the visual material better. The description of the figures should be checked again. For example, figure 5 is described with “This is the statue of the Holy Mary placed at the shrine’s entrance, where pilgrims stop before or after making their pilgrimage” (525f), however the mentioned statue is hardly visible. Thus, the description should be changed or another picture should be used that shows the statue better.
As for the terminology and language, I suggest a few changes to make the text more consistent and more legible: 1) I recommend to mention first the English name, St Anthony, in the introduction before introducing the Albanian name (Shna Ndou) (22), as the readers may not know Albanian. Furthermore, it seems a bit inconsistent to use the English name in the conclusion (480). 2) The claimed synonymous use of “material syncretism” and “syncretic materialism” (55f) is confusing and needs more clarification. 3) “sacred” is a religious term that seems to be used synonymously with “religious” and needs to be reflected or marked as a term of the field. Even some expressions seem unusual like the claim that experiences can be sacred (390f). 4) Since it should be “Shën”, rather than “Shen” (98) the Albanian spelling in the entire article should be checked. 5) Instead of Latin numbers for centuries (XIX), use Arabic numbers (19th) (line 98). 6) Terms in quotation marks should be explained, e.g. does “orthodox” refer to the Orthodox Church? (98). 7) There is an unclear abbreviation “xw” (135).
8) Terms from the field (mainly in Albanian” should be marked as such, for example “harmoni ndërfetare” could be italics. 9) There is an unexpected break with the writing style, starting with the description of the contemporary place ("we get into..." 306) which seems to be part of a field research diary or report. The transition should be made smoother. 10) The term “gypsies” (312) should either be marked as the translation of the term from the field (if that is the case), or the politically correct term (e.g. Roma) should be used to be respectful, because this group tends to be discriminated. 11) Maybe it should be “pilgrimage” instead of “ritual” (461).
Not only a question of terminology, but of methodology is the description of the visitors: Already in the abstract as well as in the article itself, the authors mention that the investigated place is “interreligious” because it is visited by Catholic and Orthodox Christians as well as by Muslims (9-11 + 318-320). This information is interesting, but irrelevant for the argumentation because the different contributions of these groups on shaping the places are not elaborated. Furthermore, the reader may wonder why the authors do not distinguish between "Sunni Muslims and Bektashis", since they differentiate between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. In general, it is not clear why mentioning the religious belonging of the visitors is significant. In addition, one may wonder how the authors can identify the visitors as “faithful” (368f). It seems that it is ignored that among the visitors might be also curious tourists or people that consider themselves as "believers" but not as a member of a religious tradition (see the last census of Albania). This leads to the question if all visitors can be considered as pilgrims, i.e. a term that describes visitors with a clear religious motivation. In addition, only in the abstract is mentioned that the visitors are from Albania and Kosovo (12) which is completely irrelevant for the argumentation. Finally, in the abstract, the second aspect on virtuality is missing and should be integrated.
As for the references, the quotation of interviews is highly appreciated, but it would be better to give more information about the interlocutor and the situation in order to connect the quotes better with the context (404f, 443-445). Some references are missing. For example, readers may wonder how the authors know that “Previously, people used to place a paper photo of their loved ones 436 on the statue.” (436f).
The quality of English language is good, so there are only a few changes needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article ambitiously combines two major strands of research in contemporary religious studies: religious infrastructure and digital religion. It does so through the ethnographic study of the Shna Ndout pilgrimage at Lac, Albania. The authors show full command of the literature concerning post-socialist Albania at large and the history of the religious site analysed in particular. Their approach has much to commend itself, insofar it balances ethnographic depth and historical analysis.
The usage of smartphones during the abovementioned pilgrimage induced the authors to reflect on the workings of virtual ritual - one would be tempted to name it "vritual". Their insightful conclusions give further reasons to overcome binary understandings of religious and secular, spiritual and material, and virtual and material.
The article is original and aptly contextualised, while the arguments are solid and clearly presented to the reader. The few, minor changes I would personally suggest revolve around a more concise definition of what exactly "infrastructure" stands for. While the literature on the topic is sufficiently brought into discussion, it is not clear how the concept of infrastructure contributes to understanding pilgrimage practices in Lac. Reporting the history of the reconstruction of the road and local house of worship is one first important step. Yet, readers are left wondering how people and infrastructures interact on the ground. Offering a definition of "infrastructure" would help to overcome this stalemate.
The quality of English is overall good and requires only moderate editing. Below are a few, minor changes I would suggest:
I am afraid the authors have mistaken "sainthood" for "grace": "sainthood" is the quality of being a saint, while in the article this is rather understood as a form of blessing that is thought as transferable through live streams done with a smartphone. The word "grace" or "divine grace" would be a better candidate to express this.
At Page 6, "Roma" would be a more suitable alternative to "gypsies"
At Page 8, the period at lines 385-389 is redundant and can be removed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is written in such stilted English that this reviewer stopped reading at line 135. It was too painful to read any further. The paper requires extensive editing with the help of a native speaker of English before this reviewer would even consider the merits of the actual topic and research.
This paper is written in very stilted English. As I began reading this paper I found stylistic and grammatical issues at almost every line. I do not feel it my role at this point to provide the authors with a running list of such issues. There are simply too many.
"materiality" appears to be a central theme of this paper." It may be a word used in certain fields, but I doubt that most readers of the journal Religions would understand the term. This reviewer certainly does not.
As they edit this paper, the authors should make a significant effort to avoid jargon and obscure phrasing (like "dishabituation of practice", line 27). Editing by a native speaker of English would certainly facilitate that.
At line 75 the authors state that they reconstruct the material history of the sanctuary "in the first paragraph." This reviewer has no idea what they mean here by a first paragraph. Just another example of the need for significant editing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author(s) of this paper claim to have addressed my comments and have made substantial edits with the help of a native speaker of English. I started to read the revised submission but did not get past the abstract before I was convinced that they had not addressed my comments and if they consulted a native speaker of English this person was a very sloppy editor. I would still not consider this paper for publication without more careful editing and some attempt to address my concerns. I append the abstract with my comments as illustration.
Abstract: The interdisciplinary perspective, between history and anthropology, of our contribution has as its subject the pilgrimage at Kisha e Shna Ndout (Sanctuary of St Anthony of Padua) in Laç, northern Albania, which is one of the most visited religious sites in south-eastern Europe. The church, built there and ministered by Franciscans, is now an impressive place of worship frequented by throughout the year by thousands of pilgrims . On the 12th and 13th June of each year, official pilgrimage is held, which reaches its climax on the night of the 12th when many thousands of Albanians sleep in the shrine seeking blessings and healings. The pilgrimage practices, show how materiality [note that "materiality" is one of the words I specificalaly pointed out as problematic and not necessarily clear to readers] is a privileged means of reaching out to the religious place. The materiality is based on the multilayered built environment, built and rebuilt and especially reconstructed after the collapse of the socialist regime [a very awkward sentence] , which reveals the pivotal function of secular infrastructures for religious places. Also virtuality [another word whose meaning is unclear and needs definition] is an important aspect of the pilgrimage: material and virtual thus form [this is incomprehensible English]a single milieu, re-shaping perceptions and participation to the pilgrimage: virtuality is sacralized and broadcasts the sainthood.
See comments above.
Author Response
Thank you for your strong suggestion. Combing all the critics and comments about the language of the three reviewers we provided a full reading and complete editing made by a native English speaker that you can find in this new review.
We edited the language and the structures of sentences.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I note that the authors have now made major stylistic revisions to the manuscript, which is now much improved.
However, I still do not really know what the authors mean by “materiality.” I have asked twice that the authors address this issue. In neither revision is it clarified. Since this word is so central to the authors' paper it really needs more careful definition. I do suspect that this word is jargon used in certain scholarly contexts, but not all readers are going to be familiar with that jargon. I am sure that I will not be the only reader who wonders about this. I do not really understand why the authors have ignored my comments about this word. I personally cannot recommend publication until this issue is resolved.
The following issues noted by this reviewer suggest that yet another careful editing of the entire paper is required before publication. Note that this is not a comprehensive list of issues, but just a few noticed by this reader.
Abstract: “frequented by Catholics, Muslims, and Orthodoxies” “Orthodoxies” should be “Orthodox Christians” or simply “Orthodox.” Catholics and Muslims are people. Orthodoxies are religious sects. Consistency is needed.
Line 101 ste Should this be “site”?
Line 189 Catholics Should this be “Catholicism”?
Line 293 the immaterial remains—the debris of the place: how can debris be described as “immaterial”? Debris is material!
Line 509 conclusive remarks: should “conclusive” be “concluding”? These two words have very different meanings.
Line 553 use to take: “use” should be “used”
Line 558 entry for feference #1 is blank. Is this because the author(s) wrote this?
See comments above.
Author Response
Thank you for your strong suggestion.
We have amended the language in the points you requested.
We did not ignore your comment on materiality, but since it is a concept that is fully accepted, used and discussed in the literature (see the cited studies) and consequently in our paper, being the core of the approach, we did not pay sufficient attention to an operational definition.
We have done this, developing the meaning of the concept later and through the text.
