Acharya Prashant addresses a question regarding the meaning of Shivling and the significance of pilgrimage sites like Kashi, as mentioned in the Skanda Purana. He begins by stating that this is a good question that everyone involved in the Shivling controversy, especially those with strong opinions, should ask themselves. He clarifies that before forming strong views, one must first understand what a Shivling is. He explains that the word 'ling' means a symbol, not a part of the body. The male genital organ is called a 'ling' because it is a symbol of being male. The Shivling is a symbol of the human condition. The base, shaped like a 'yoni', represents the body or the world, and the erect part in the middle, the 'ling', represents consciousness situated within the body. The Shivling teaches us to live in the body but remain free from it, like a witness. This is the state of being 'videh-mukt' (liberated while embodied) or 'jivan-mukt' (liberated while living). This is the ideal way of life, and the Shivling symbol was established in villages and alleys to remind people of this. When one forgets the meaning of the symbol, it becomes mere hypocrisy and superstition. The speaker then explains the science behind pilgrimage sites. He states that a person is burdened by two things: the biological and the social. To alleviate the social burden, pilgrimage sites were established in serene, natural, and secluded places, away from society. To alleviate the biological burden, which is the identification with the body, stories related to great figures like Shri Ram, Shri Krishna, or Shiva were associated with these places. By remembering them, one remembers their own true Self, the Atman. For example, remembering Krishna is to remember the Atman, which is beyond the body. Thus, a pilgrimage site is a place that frees you from both social and biological burdens. However, he laments that we have lost our pilgrimage sites, not to others, but to ourselves, by forgetting their true meaning. When a pilgrimage site becomes a crowded city, it is no longer a pilgrimage site. When going to a pilgrimage site reinforces one's body-consciousness, it is no longer a pilgrimage site. He concludes by saying that our temples and pilgrimage sites need to be reclaimed, not from others, but from our own ignorance.