▁emot ions ▁rather ▁than ▁fact ual ▁real ities ". ▁ ▁Other ▁scient ists ▁in ▁India ▁and ▁elsewhere ▁have ▁rejected ▁a ▁super natural ▁explanation ▁for ▁the ▁existence ▁of ▁the ▁structure . ▁NASA ▁said ▁that ▁its ▁satellite ▁photos ▁had ▁been ▁e greg iously ▁mis inter pre ted ▁to ▁make ▁this ▁point ▁(" The ▁images ▁reprodu ced ▁on ▁the ▁websites ▁may ▁well ▁be ▁our s , ▁but ▁their ▁interpretation ▁is ▁certainly ▁not ▁our s . ▁[...] ▁Rem ote ▁sens ing ▁images ▁or ▁photograph s ▁from ▁orbit ▁cannot ▁provide ▁direct ▁information ▁about ▁the ▁origin ▁or ▁age ▁of ▁a ▁chain ▁of ▁islands , ▁and ▁certainly , ▁cannot ▁determine ▁whether ▁humans ▁were ▁involved ▁in ▁producing ▁any ▁of ▁the ▁patterns ▁seen ." ). ▁ ▁In ▁ 2 0 0 7 , ▁the ▁Sri ▁L ank an ▁Tour ism ▁Development ▁Author ity ▁sought ▁to ▁promote ▁religious ▁tour ism ▁from ▁H indu ▁pil gr ims ▁in ▁India ▁by ▁including ▁the ▁phenomen on ▁as ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁points ▁on ▁its ▁" R am ay ana ▁Tra il ", ▁celebr ating ▁the ▁legend ▁of ▁Prince ▁R ama . ▁Some ▁Sri ▁L ank an ▁histor ians ▁have ▁condem ned ▁the ▁undert aking ▁as ▁" a ▁gross ▁dist ort ion ▁of ▁Sri ▁L ank an ▁history ". ▁ ▁Scient ific ▁response ▁to ▁revision ist ▁movement ▁A ▁report ▁from ▁the ▁Arch ae ological ▁Survey ▁of ▁India ▁found ▁no ▁evidence ▁for ▁the ▁structure ▁being ▁man - made . ▁The ▁Arch ae ological ▁Survey ▁of ▁India ▁and ▁the ▁government ▁of ▁India ▁informed ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁of ▁India ▁in ▁a