Trekking Machu Picchu:should we trek on sacred ground?
Ciudad Perdida, Machu Picchu, Roraima. All sacred places and all top trekking holidays for thousands of tourists every year. But is it right for us to walk free over this holy ground? Does our modern impact anger the gods? And if we are trekking Machu Picchu and other sites of religious significance, can we ever balance our needs with those of the places we visit?
Roraima, the great tepuy of Venezuela’s Gran Sabana and inspiration for Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World, is a sacred link between earth and sky for the native Indians of the area. It’s their Mount Olympus, and with its endemic life forms and constantly shifting weather systems, it’s a mystical wonder even to an avid agnostic.
A telling sign of the lasting importance of Roraima’s spirituality is the necessity of all treks to be accompanied by at least one native Indian. It is his duty to offer a blessing to the 1800-metre rock face, and request divine permission to scale its heights. Whilst it may seem phoney to the western tourist, it’s no effort to respect these beliefs and be glad that there is a job that no one can be more qualified for than a native.
I have not undertaken the Machu Picchu trek, but it, and Ciudad Perdida in Colombia, have similar connotations (even if the latter’s visitor numbers are barely a positive number compared with the former) both are ancient cities built by indigenous tribes, fallen into disrepair under the conquistadors and both given new purpose through tourism.
Is this just a step in the evolution of a place? While I feel these places should not be disturbed and altered beyond recognition, to leave them unseen would also be a great tragedy. There is no difference in flocking to Athens to witness the Pantheon, just because it is still surrounded by an inhabited city. If Machu Picchu lay in the centre of Cusco, the nearest city, no one would question the right to disturb its holy and bloodied soils.
Lets check reality with concept. It is often suggested that these places risk losing their cultural identity. Foreign bars, tourist tat shops, gringo run hostels. But these places exist in London, Barcelona, Paris, and every major European city, but no one has suggested they are homogenous and devoid of their original cultural quirks.
Westerners must not have some patronising viewpoint of the developing world in terms of globalisation. It is ridiculous to create ‘The West’, and then try to resist less developed nations aspiring to our wealth, just because here we are afraid we will annihilate their cultures, despite single currencies and free trade not making that happen here. In Peru they just want tourists; surely we can deliver them and be restpectful of its cultural history?
In Colombia, the ironically titled ‘Ciudad Perdida’ (Lost City), has caused more issues than just environmental damage and disturbances of the gods. Tourists have been repeatedly kidnapped from these guerrilla-ridden rainforests and the military now maintain a permanent presence at the city and park entrance. If there were no tourists the possibility is these soldiers would be deployed elsewhere. But it is easy to see how much the people who live along this route, until 1972 many unaware of the spectacle in their midst, must benefit from the trekking route.
Camps have been built, some right alongside local houses, and small eateries have sprung up in the gateway town. And when ‘The War On Drugs’, funded largely by the US, has destroyed much of these farmers’ crops and land, it is surely only right for tourists to give something back and open up new and lucrative industries?
Roraima and Ciudad Perdida are also pleasurable due to the small number of tourist you encounter whilst trekking. Trekking in Peru – especially to Machu Picchu – is a more popular choice, but will it become a victim of its own success?
So, as tourists and trekking fans, we should tread carefully, respect local culture, and at the same time be glad that we are privileged to witness these spectacles of natural and human greatness.
What do you think? Can indigenous culture and identity co-exist in harmony with our love of travel? Or are we taking with one hand as much as we bring with the other?
Related posts:
- Essential kit for a trekking adventure
- Trekking in Iceland: Journey to the centre of the earth
- The Top 10 Tips for Trekking in the Himalayas
Jonathan Tait




There’s definitely an exchange. And you make a valid point about the economic necessity of travel – for both parties. It’s a commodity to one and a luxury to the other and we should never take advantage.
You can also take this discussion and apply to some of the tourist hot-spots of Spain and Greece. I think as long as we recognise that we (travellers, travel companies and governments) maintain the integrity of the places we visit, it should be sustainable.
interesting article about Trekking Machu Picchu thanks for sharing