By Nader Shoukry – Watani –
For years, the Egyptian state, in cooperation with the Coptic Church, has sought to transform the Holy Family Trail project into one of the world’s most important spiritual tourism initiatives. The project is not merely about archaeological sites, churches, or monasteries; it forms part of Egypt’s identity and carries a civilizational and spiritual message rooted in thousands of years of history.
It was therefore natural for the project to receive broad attention. The route includes 25 principal locations spread across more than 3,500 kilometers, covering eight governorates. It has long been viewed as a national project capable of attracting millions of tourists, supporting the Egyptian economy, and reinforcing Egypt’s image as the land that welcomed the Holy Family.
But, as often happens with successful or promising projects, parties have begun approaching the initiative not out of a desire to preserve or develop it, but rather to secure a share of the “cake.”
When Spiritual Tourism Becomes a Business Deal
This is where the real crisis emerges—revealed by the proposed law concerning the administration of the Holy Family Trail, which has sparked anger and concern among those closely involved with the project.
The first major question is this: how can a draft law directly concerning churches, monasteries, and sites affiliated with the Coptic Church be introduced without consulting the Church or discussing it with its representatives?
The Church is not a marginal party in this project; it is the very foundation upon which the entire trail is built. It is illogical for laws governing the administration of these sites to be discussed without the participation of those responsible for them and most familiar with their spiritual nature and particular sensitivities.
How, then, could the draft pass from the Speaker of Parliament to the Tourism Committee without the Church even being informed?
The problem does not stop at excluding the Church. It extends to the substance of the bill itself, whose provisions reveal a distinctly commercial and investment-oriented approach rather than a genuine effort to preserve religious and spiritual heritage.
According to Article 3 of the proposed law, the authority overseeing the project would derive its resources from state allocations, revenues generated through investment in lands and facilities under its control, entrance fees and service charges collected at the Trail’s locations, as well as grants, donations, and subsidies. The law also opens the door to the establishment of joint-stock companies and investment projects.
This naturally raises a critical question: is the objective truly to promote spiritual tourism, or to create a new economic entity that controls the project’s lands and revenues?
Even more alarming are provisions that could allow control over lands and facilities connected to church sites. Article 6 states that ownership or authority over non-archaeological tourist lands and facilities located within the Trail’s areas may be transferred from the governorates to the new authority by decision of the Prime Minister. This provision is linked to Article 4, which classifies the authority’s assets as public funds and grants it powers of administrative seizure under Law No. 308 of 1955.
The proposed transfer of authority over lands and tourist facilities within the Trail’s scope raises serious concerns, particularly because many of these lands are directly connected to churches, monasteries, or Coptic communities.
This creates legitimate fears that sacred places could gradually be transformed into investment zones governed primarily by calculations of profit and loss, potentially undermining the spiritual atmosphere and quiet character of these sites.
Behind the Language of “Development” and Investment
The proposal to impose entrance fees on churches and monasteries also raises highly sensitive concerns. These sites are not museums or entertainment venues, but active places of worship where prayers and religious rites are conducted daily. Some serve local congregations that regularly attend them. Turning such places into ticketed destinations risks provoking both social and ecclesiastical tensions while distorting the project’s original purpose.
Another troubling aspect is the proposed authority’s ability to establish joint-stock companies or enter into partnerships with investors. One of the law’s provisions authorizes the authority to establish companies independently or in partnership with others, or to participate in existing companies.
Past experiences with major projects make this provision particularly concerning, especially amid fears that cliques and networks of interests may emerge seeking to monopolize the project or redirect it toward private interests rather than the public good.
These are only some examples of the bill’s provisions, not an exhaustive list. The fact that such legislation could be drafted while ignoring the Church—or while claiming the Church’s approval, or merely planning to consult it afterward—reveals the seriousness of what lies between the lines. The concern is that the Holy Family Trail could be transformed from a national and ecclesiastical project into a business enterprise serving private interests.
Protecting the Sacred from Commercialization
In reality, the Holy Family Trail project does not need additional authorities, councils, or committees as much as it needs practical implementation on the ground, genuine coordination between the state and the Church, and respect for the sacred nature of these sites.
The state has already taken important steps in developing infrastructure and restoring several locations along the route, while the Church itself has borne a significant share of restoration and development efforts through its own resources. What is needed now is to continue this cooperation in a spirit of partnership, not domination or appropriation.
A project of this scale cannot succeed through laws drafted behind closed doors or through attempts to control lands, donations, and revenues. Success requires a genuine national vision that respects the sanctity of the sites and places Egypt’s interests above narrow personal or economic considerations.
Tourists who come to visit the Holy Family Trail will not only visit churches. They will also visit the Egyptian Museum, the pyramids, temples, and numerous other tourist destinations. This means the success of the project would benefit Egypt’s economy and tourism sector as a whole.
For these reasons, preserving the spiritual character and historical identity of the Trail is not merely a Church demand; it is a national necessity aimed at protecting one of Egypt’s most important religious and tourism projects.
Ultimately, the central question remains: do we truly want a project that serves Egypt and preserves the sanctity of the Holy Family Trail? Or are we witnessing yet another attempt to turn one of the country’s holiest files into a new source of profit under the banner of “development” and “investment”?
_______________________________
Translated from:
