

Kerala temple's secret vaults yield £12bn in treasure - sushumna
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/kerala-temple-vault-treasure

======
patio11
This comment is only borderline HN-worthy, since it is going to mix religion,
philosophy, and politics:

1) We historically give religious organizations wide discretion in the
accumulation of wealth and how they dispose of it. This is controversial in
some quarters, but even if one were not inclined to be religious or to see
present value in relatively wealthy religious institutions, one could justify
it as respecting "the democracy of the dead" and not overturning their
distributional preferences on the mere strength that you happen to be living
right now and they do not.

2) A Catholic or Protestant church suddenly discovered to be wealthier than
expected would not be expected to surrender that wealth to the government in
virtually any Western country, which is (per 1) for the best. If it were a
country I had any political say in, I would be _strongly_ inclined to grant
Hindu temples the same courtesy.

3) Poverty in India sucketh royally. Contrasting that with a particular rich
temple makes sense if, and only if, one has an efficient gold-into-anti-
poverty engine. There may exist a system which fits that description, but the
present government of India is manifestly not it. In the absence of evidence
that windfall taxation would be treated differently than India's other sources
of revenue, which get redirected to corruption and cronyism with some
regularity, I would be inclined to leave the gold in the ground. Giving it to
the government does not guarantee that it does not get looted, to put it
mildly.

~~~
Poiesis
Also, religions have historically been particularly focused on helping the
poor. One can argue if they're being effective, you can argue if they're doing
enough, you can argue that they hold on to too much wealth--but many religions
do in fact have a mandate to help the poor. Whether this qualifies as a "gold-
into-anti-poverty engine is somewhat debatable.

