I tried to remember some counterexamples etc. When I think of a deliberately subterranean sanctuary, I imagine Christian catacomb churches, something selected

I tried to remember some counterexamples etc. When I think of a deliberately subterranean sanctuary, I imagine Christian catacomb churches, something selected out of necessity and later revered for the legend of the struggle. Anchorites would often live underground in cells. Egyptian tombs were places of a intense, one-time devotion for upper-level hierarchs, I should think? Then sealed-off. Many Japanese temples are built on mountaintops, and major mountain rages around the world are usually host to monasteries as quiet places of contemplation. Oftentimes a temple not built in a high place is in some other manner auspicious. In East Asia, "Ley Lines" play an important role in where to place a temple. Very small Zoroastrian fire temples were usually placed as community hubs - they look just a little taller than surrounding buildings in some photos but I'm less certain height was such a concern? I remember seeing a documentary where a very revered fire that has been burning for hundreds or thousands of years if not, (perhaps only apocryphally), for as long as Zorastrianism has existed is in something of a pit carved into the side of a cliff. I'm going to aim as far back as we've got records, to Gobekli Tepe and give an excerpt from Wikipedia: "Göbekli Tepe is located in the Taş Tepeler ('Stone Hills'), in the foothills of the Taurus Mountains.[24] It overlooks the Harran plain and the headwaters of the Balikh River, a tributary of the Euphrates.[24] The site is a tell (artificial mound) situated on a flat limestone plateau.[25] In the north, the plateau is connected to the neighbouring mountains by a narrow promontory. In all other directions, the ridge descends steeply into slopes and steep cliffs." Caveat: This was thousands of years ago so the geology could have been somewhat different. But it was probably a high place albeit not the very highest. A local raised formation. The conclusion I feel comfortable making is, a great deal of factors go into deciding where to place a religious sanctuary. Where we put the temple, how big we build it, what we put in it is all about the meaning to us (so long as we're not driven underground, or far-afield by persecutors). But I'll unfold my "evolutionary religious studies" lawnchair/armchair to say it seems to me like surviving systems converge on the importance of height, and I think that's because what height tends to means to us (strength for a difficult climb, solitude for contemplation, vision of our surroundings, visibility from afar) are very worthy ideals that help us survive as societies and individudals. But also worth considering is; control of high places correlates to control of a large enough territory to agriculturally support heavier development up there. The dominant worldview model can eventually gain access to high places and when it does, it has the capacity to build its temples/monastic communities there.