UNESCO’s criteria for World heritage Site lists down ten criteria, of which at least six have a cultural & human element. I was always under the impression that Kinabalu was recognized as a Heritage Site for its importance in indigenous culture, until the earthquake shook me. I am surprised to see UNESCO’s own page listing the criteria X (geology) and XII (Biodiversity) as the lone reasons for the status of World heritage Site, with no mention of its importance in the indigenous culture. Long before the site was recognized to have geological and biodiversity values, the indigenous communities have revered it as a sacred site. The name Kinabalu itself is believed to have been derived from the Kadazan term Aki Nabalu , meaning 'the revered place of the dead'. The site is still revered highly by the Kadazan people, and the beautifully arranged ancestral stones bear testimony to this. According to the community’s beliefs, Kinabalu is where the spirits of the deceased members stop to rest during their journey to the afterlife. Yet, this was not considered as a criteria for World Heritage Status. Behind the successful marketing of ‘Kinabalu’, there is the forgotten story of a community, and its access to its own heritage and culture. The community had to give up its cultural practice of conducting the ‘Monolob’ ritual (it was usually performed before every ascend and later relegated to an annual pilgrimage) in 1964, when the site was declared as a Park. From 1964 to 2010, the community was denied access to their ancestral site- the very site they had held close to their heart and beliefs. Sabah Parks and the Global Biodiversity Foundation should be applauded for helping the community regain its traditional rights, at least partially. Read this: "... we do not want the mountain back. It is a heritage for the world, and for that, we are proud and happy to share this mountain with everyone....We would like to have one day to return to the mountain." [Read more at www.global-diversity.org]
Behind this generosity, is the pain of alienation- the same curse that has hampered biodiversity conservation in human influenced landscapes throughout the world. Biodiversity managers have largely refused to recognize the importance of cultural values in conservation, and the handing over of the field of conservation from the hands of ‘trained biodiversity professionals’ to ‘managers’ educated in the field of business has further added to a blatant commodification of nature, where parks and sacred sites are only seen as marketable ‘packages’. The chief goal has thus become profit making, with conservation relegated to the secondary position. This is why native culture isn’t accorded any importance, unless it is worth being marketed as a unique ‘package’.
The nudist in the sacred site, is one inevitable byproduct of such blatant commodification of nature.
Exhibitionism, or the “desire or compulsion to expose themselves in such a manner to groups of friends or acquaintances, or to strangers for their amusement or sexual satisfaction or to shock the bystander” is also a weapon to seek attention. Cheap travel has made tourism more affordable and ‘collecting’ national parks or Heritage sites, is no more a ‘unique hobby’.  People now resort to seek a niche- a niche that would help them stay unique in the crowded market. The nudist in the Sacred Mount of Kinabalu therefore doesn’t come as a shocker to me. Especially when this phenomenon has already created enough controversies in Angkor Wat.
I believe that the decision to charge the offenders  in the native court, is a bold move. Yes, it would give the offenders the exact kind of negative publicity they have been looking for. But, the debate it kindles is sure to take the message to a wider section of the society, and would highlight the message that Indigenous beliefs are as important as anybody else' .

One doesn’t have to be a believer to respect other’s beliefs. I personally may or may not believe in a God or an associated religion. But, do I have a right to denigrate somebody else’ beliefs?
One of the points raised in the social media is the ‘backwardness of Sabahans’ in deciding to prosecute the nude tourists. Imagine what would have happened if this act of stripping had happened in a Church, Temple or Mosque!   
Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the native people- people who gave up their ancestral land, for the pleasure of tourists like me, and for the ‘good of mankind’. What right do we have to hurt them, that too in their own land?
Being a member of an indigenous community isn’t easy in a world that sadly puts more emphasis on money than values. To understand the ties of indigenous people with their ecosystem, mere words wouldn’t be enough. For them, their land is everything- a feeling that we urban dwellers will take ages to understand. Compensation packages offered to the people affected by various ‘development’ projects (throughout the world) have always undermined this tie, as if it never existed. Various organisations/movements all over the world have raised their voice in support of the indigenous, and indeed there have been a few examples of participatory decision making. Yet, despite the progress made in bits and pieces, we have collectively failed to safeguard the rights and interests of the indigenous communities all over the world.
To strip or not to strip in public isn’t entirely about personal choice! It is also about respecting others’ beliefs. This respect and recognition has to begin from the brand of “World Heritage Sites’ itself. Unless the brand reforms itself to recognize and give prominence to the culture of indigenous people, such acts of obscenity are bound to happen! This is why I prefer the concept of Sacred Natural Sites.
After all these controversies, I am asking the same question to me again. Have I done anything to support such indigenous communities to conserve their resources, culture and beliefs without compromising on the opportunities for economic progress?  Having failed miserably, shouldn’t I at least stay away from denigrating their spaces?
Mount Kinabalu might be popular as a World Heritage Site. But for me, it will always remain a Sacred Natural Site that is just ‘packaged’ and marketed as a World heritage Site. And, anybody unable to see the sacredness should simply stay away !