This article records tradition as it has been passed down and reported. Its sources are not yet part of the atlas's verified catalogue.
Studying religion across many different cultures at once, rather than one tradition at a time, is the whole project comparative religion set out to do, and it carries a specific risk worth naming plainly: a category built to describe one culture's religious life, often a culture already familiar to the scholar doing the comparing, gets applied to a very differently organized culture and quietly distorts it, finding a priesthood, a scripture or a creed where the culture in question never organized its religious life along those lines at all.
The corrective most comparative scholars now practice is describing a culture's religious life first in the terms that culture itself uses, and only afterward, carefully, asking what if anything genuinely lines up across cultures. Reversing that order, starting from a familiar category and hunting for its equivalent everywhere else, tends to manufacture agreement a culture's own account would never claim for itself.
That discipline matters most exactly where a culture's religious life resists tidy separation from the rest of its life, where a rite the culture treats as ordinary daily practice would be filed under religion by an outside observer's categories and under simple custom by the culture's own. The atlas tries to record that difference rather than paper over it with a label imported from somewhere else.