From Mountains and Forests to the Seas: The Maritime Spread of the Sanping Patriarch Belief

Abstract

As a representative form of popular religion in southern Fujian (Minnan 闽南), the Sanping Patriarch (Sanping Zushi 三平祖師) belief exhibits distinct transregional and cross-cultural characteristics in its dissemination across Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Taking the ancestral temples in Fujian 福建 as a point of departure, this article systematically analyzes the transmission routes and localization strategies of this belief system in Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Drawing on detailed archival research, fieldwork (including site visits), and interviews, the study reveals how the belief has continually revitalized itself in pluralistic societies through strategies of “orthodoxy preservation” and “localized innovation.” The findings suggest that in Taiwan, the Sanping Patriarch belief primarily relies on kinship networks to maintain traditional practices. At the same time, in Southeast Asia, it spreads across ethnic boundaries through commercial and trade networks. Differences are also evident in the realm of mythological symbols, core rituals, and social functions. This study pays special attention to often-overlooked mythological figures such as the “Serpent Attendant” and “Tiger Attendant,” shedding light on the multilayered structure of folk religious systems.

1. Introduction

Sanping Patriarch (Chan Master Yizhong, 781–872) was a highly esteemed monk of the Tang dynasty (618–907), renowned for his mastery of Chan Buddhist teachings. He played a pivotal role in spreading Buddhism throughout the Zhangzhou 漳州 region of Fujian 福建 and personally founded Sanping Temple (Sanping Si 三平寺) to promote the Dharma. Not only did he lead by example, working alongside the people in the fields, but he also generously imparted farming techniques, astronomical knowledge, and medical wisdom, demonstrating the compassion inherent in Buddhism. His contributions earned him the deep respect of both the local populace and officials, and he was granted the honorary title of “Guangji Chan Master” (Guangji Chanshi 廣濟禪師) by Emperor Xuanzong 宣宗 of Tang in recognition of his service to society.

After his passing, the influence of the Sanping Patriarch continued to expand. By the Song dynasty 宋代 (960–1279), the process of deification had gradually taken shape, and he came to be venerated as a deity embodying both a Buddhist saint and a local protective deity. A priestly system centered on “Sanping” also emerged, characterized by three primary functions: pingding 平定 (pacification of) the local area, mediating conflicts, and educating and uplifting local communities; pingyi 平疫 (epidemic relief), associated with healing powers, medical legends, and the practice of drawing medicinal lots; and ping’an 平安 (safeguarding), offering protection together with his Serpent and Tiger Attendants. Although this interpretation is not found in early textual sources, it aligns with the traditional Chinese religious logic of “honoring those with merit”1 (Hu and Zhang 2017, p. 891) and reflects the pragmatic emphasis on “disaster-aversion and protection” that typifies popular belief systems (Hansen 1990, p. 38).

The name “Sanping” originates from the terrain of Sanping Mountain in Zhangzhou, described as “three precipitous and three level areas” (san xian san ping 三險三平). As the Sanping Patriarch belief spread beyond its place of origin, “Sanping” not only became the basis for temple names but also evolved into a cultural symbol representing ritual orthodoxy and ancestral legitimacy.

Although recent scholarship has increasingly paid attention to the formation and dissemination of the Sanping Patriarch belief, a comprehensive and cross-regional analysis remains lacking. Sun (2012) examined the formation, spread, and flourishing of the belief but did not delve into its transnational diffusion. Chia (2022) focused on how local governments in post-Mao China promoted the Sanping Patriarch belief as part of cultural and religious policy initiatives. In addition, scholars such as Dong Ligong (董立功)2, Yu-mei Hsieh (謝玉美)3, Chi-Shiang Chang (張志相)4, Yan Yayu (顏亞玉)5, and Kuei-wen Hsieh (謝貴文)6 have conducted studies on the Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan. Case studies by Song Yanpeng (宋燕鵬)7, Tan Ai Boay (陳愛梅)8, and Zheng Laifa (鄭來發)9 have examined the worship of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Malaysia.

However, existing research has yet to systematically explore how the belief has traversed geographic and cultural boundaries through migrant networks and commercial routes to reach Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Furthermore, it lacks a thorough analysis of how the belief has negotiated “orthodoxy preservation” and “localized innovation” within pluralistic societies. A cross-regional comparative perspective linking the ancestral temple in Fujian, its dissemination in Taiwan, and its adaptation in Southeast Asia remains underdeveloped.

This study seeks to fill the above-mentioned research gap by systematically examining the mechanisms of transmission and localization strategies of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan and Southeast Asia. It focuses on how the belief has achieved new developments in cross-cultural contexts through the continuation of ancestral legitimacy as a symbol of orthodoxy and through innovative practices of localization.

Based on the research findings of previous scholars, this study adopts a multi-method approach that integrates inscriptional analysis, local gazetteer studies, fieldwork (conducted at Sanping Monastery in Pinghe County 平和縣, Fujian Province 福建省, between 2023 and 2025), and interview data (including a 2025 interview with Mr. Lui Poh Kwan, archivist of Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca). It investigates the shared features and divergences among the ancestral temple in Fujian and its affiliated temples in Taiwan and Southeast Asia in terms of transmission mechanisms, ritual practices, and social functions. Through this comparative lens, the study reveals how the Sanping Patriarch belief has been adapted and reconfigured in various sociocultural contexts.

The study finds that the sustained development of the Sanping Patriarch belief relies on two key pathways. On the one hand, it maintains ancestral orthodoxy through a symbolic system centered on the name “Sanping 三平” and mythological attendants such as the Serpent Attendant 蛇侍者10 (Figure 1) and Tiger Attendant 虎侍者11 (Figure 2), thereby reinforcing the legitimacy link between branch temples and the ancestral temple. On the other hand, it actively adapts to pluralistic societies through localized innovations, including ritual creativity (e.g., the Techno Prince Parade dance 電音三太子 in Taiwan), pantheon fusion (e.g., shared worship of Datuk Gong at Chong Ann Teng Temple in Malacca), transformation into charitable practices (e.g., the “Blessing Turtle” ritual at Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca), and digital dissemination via platforms such as TikTok and YouTube.

Through a regional comparative approach, this study systematically reveals how the Sanping Patriarch belief negotiates between “orthodoxy preservation” and “localized innovation” in diverse sociocultural contexts. The findings of this research may offer a preliminary foundation for further investigations into the global spread of the Sanping Patriarch belief.

2. The Origins and Early Development of the Sanping Patriarch Belief

Sanping Patriarch was born in the second year of the Jianzhong 建中 reign (781) in present-day Fuqing 福清, Fujian. He became a monk in the tenth year of the Zhenyuan 貞元 reign (794) under the guidance of Master Xuan Yong 玄用律師. In the first year of the Tang Bao Li 寶曆 reign (825), he traveled from Chaozhou 潮州 to Zhangzhou to spread the teachings of Buddhism. At that time, Buddhism in the region was experiencing steady growth. According to Wang (1997, p. 50), 45 new Buddhist temples were constructed in Fujian during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong of the Tang dynasty, and this expansion continued into the late Tang period (820–907).

Against this backdrop, Sanping Patriarch propagated the Dharma in the mountainous and miasmic regions of Zhangzhou, earning wide acclaim from the populace through practices that blended Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. Following the Huichang 會昌 Persecution of Buddhism in 845, state suppression of Buddhism intensified, and widespread reliance on localized Chan masters grew significantly. In this context, local officials invited the Sanping Patriarch to preside over the Kaiyuan Temple 開元寺 in Zhangzhou as a means to stabilize local religious life (Wang 1986). This unique historical moment not only deepened his influence among the people but also laid the groundwork for his eventual imperial recognition and deification.

When the Sanping Patriarch set about establishing Sanping Temple, he faced numerous challenges, including frequent natural disasters and suspicion and distrust from the local mountain people. Through his practical efforts, teaching agricultural techniques, imparting astronomical knowledge, and offering medical assistance, he not only resolved local tensions but also demonstrated an extraordinary ability to address real-world problems. As a result, he was gradually attributed with supernatural powers, and his image underwent a process of sacralization.

The Sanping Patriarch passed away at Sanping Temple on the sixth day of the eleventh lunar month in the thirteenth year of the Xiantong 咸通 reign (872). After his death, accounts of his miraculous deeds—such as summoning rain, dispelling disasters, healing epidemics, and subduing demons and dangerous animals—spread widely. According to Chang (2010, p. 37), he came to be regarded by the populace as possessing esoteric powers (mifa shentong 密法神通). This mythologization reflects the widespread psychological reliance on supernatural forces. As remarked by Wu (1995, p. 7) “when faced with disasters that are beyond human control or natural calamities, people will burn incense, bow their heads, and offer sacrifices to gods and spirits, praying to supernatural forces for help. They offer gifts to the deities who protect them, and even seek favor from foreign deities, pleading for blessings, disaster relief, and healing.”

Ultimately, the Sanping Patriarch was transformed from a historical monk into a local protective deity, and Sanping Temple emerged as a regional center of religious worship. The veneration of the Sanping Patriarch began to take form during the Song dynasty (Sun 2012, p. 95).

The name Sanping originates from Sanping Mountain in Zhangzhou. According to the General Gazetteer of the Eight Min (Bamin Tongzhi 八閩通志; Huang 2006, p. 210), compiled in the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), the mountain was named for its distinctive topography, which features “three precipitous and three level areas” (san xian san ping). The temple established by Sanping Patriarch on this mountain was thus named Sanping Temple, making “Sanping” in this context a geographical designation.

During his lifetime, Sanping Patriarch was credited with subduing local indigenous forces, warding off epidemics, and protecting the community—deeds that earned him widespread acclaim. After his death, these actions became mythologized, and he came to be endowed with a tripartite divine power: pingding (pacification), pingyi (epidemic relief), and ping’an (safeguarding). He gradually became a spiritual protector for the people of southern Fujian.

The formation of the Sanping Patriarch belief was a long-term process shaped by the interaction of three key forces. First, the psychological needs of the believers formed the foundation for its ongoing development. Sanping Patriarch became a symbolic figure for disaster aversion and spiritual protection. Monastics at Sanping Temple reinforced this belief system through temple construction, enshrinement of the Patriarch’s image, and the oral transmission of stories (such as his subjugation of mountain spirits).

Second, support from the local gentry class enhanced the belief’s legitimacy. During the Song dynasty, notable officials such as Yan Shilu 顏師魯 and his grandson Yan Yizhong 顏頤仲 made substantial donations for temple reconstruction. According to local accounts, when a miraculous serpent—believed to be an incarnation of the Dharma protector of Sanping Temple—appeared in Yan Yizhong’s household, the gentry immediately raised funds to restore the temple (Wang and Chang 2000, p. 249). These acts not only signaled the influence of their lineage but also conferred orthodox status on the belief by associating it with elite sponsorship. As some scholars have argued, they enriched and advanced the Sanping Patriarch belief through their own official experiences and existential needs (Hu 2011, p. 76), thereby enabling the belief to transcend folk religion and gain broader societal recognition.

Third, it benefited from the catalytic role of mythological narratives. Among them, the legend of Sanping Patriarch subduing venomous serpents and ferocious tigers—and turning them into divine attendants—played a central role. As remarked by Su (2025, p. 203), “the serpent’s inhuman form is transformed into a human-like being through the power of Sanping Patriarch.” It is further endowed with divinity and becomes an object of worship (Guo 2013, p. 17). However, this process of deification was not without difficulty—the tale of the Patriarch subduing mountain demons metaphorically represents the hardships he faced in establishing a Buddhist temple in this remote region (Shi 2004, p. 138).

The Serpent Attendant not only functions as the Patriarch’s intermediary but is also believed to possess healing powers, forming a complementary relationship with the deity. For example, in temples explicitly dedicated to the attendants (shizhe gong miao 侍者公廟), devotees often seek ashes from the incense burner to take home and consume in times of illness (Weng 1935, p. 101). This practice further reinforces the practical and therapeutic role of the Serpent Attendant in local belief systems. The transformation from “serpent” to “human” to “deity” enriches the narrative structure of the belief and reflects the harmonious integration of diverse religious and cultural traditions within Fujian society (Wu 2001, p. 40).

In addition to the legend of the Serpent Attendant, the “Bamin Tongzhi” 八閩通志 (Huang 2006, p. 210) provides a detailed record of the “Tiger Climbing Spring” (Hu Pa Quan 虎爬泉)12 on Sanping Mountain. This record corroborates oral legends about the Patriarch’s subjugation of a thousand-year-old tiger demon and the tale of a tiger listening to his Buddha’s teachings. These narratives not only enhance the mythological richness of the belief but also highlight the Patriarch’s supernatural power and boundless compassion. Together, they imbue the Sanping Patriarch belief system with deeper symbolic meaning—namely, the subjugation of malevolent forces and the safeguarding of peace and well-being.

It is noteworthy that the Serpent and Tiger Attendants, as Dharma protectors of the Sanping Patriarch, function in roles analogous to imperial bodyguards, thus reflecting the mutual borrowing between religious and political authority in the maintenance of traditional social order. These legends, while appealing to the popular imagination through their narrative intimacy and visual symbolism, also resonate with deeper allegorical meanings that align with state ideology. As such, they serve not only to attract lay devotees but also to garner official recognition and support, thereby becoming crucial vehicles for the transmission and legitimization of the belief.

Local officials played a key role in legitimizing the Sanping Patriarch belief by recording miraculous events, such as prayers for rain being answered13 (Yao and Li 2000, p. 401), successful petitions for offspring14 (Wang 2018, p. 1507), and dispelling epidemics15 (Lu 2010, p. 79)—in official gazetteers. They also took the lead in temple renovations and public rituals. These actions not only deepened the piety of local believers but also granted the belief a measure of official recognition and institutional legitimacy. Through this process, the Sanping Patriarch belief expanded from a localized mountain worship in Zhangzhou into a broader regional belief system across southern Fujian.

During this period, temples dedicated to the Sanping Patriarch began to proliferate, such as the Sanping Patriarch Temple in Shancheng 山城, Nanjing 南靖 County, Daifang An 岱房庵, and the Handegong 翰德宮 in Mapu 馬鋪 Township, Yunxiao 雲霄 County. This expansion was not merely a geographical diffusion; it was accompanied by a deep cultural integration with the local southern Fujian context. As remarked by Xiang (2025, p. 167), “the Sanping Patriarch belief developed through historical processes; it is the result of southern Fujian’s geographical features and popular aspirations being projected onto the divine.”

Notably, the belief system also incorporated core elements from Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, gradually evolving into an integral component of southern Fujian cultural identity. Based on this regional consolidation, the belief laid a foundation for its subsequent maritime dissemination and transregional influence.

3. The Sanping Patriarch Belief in Taiwan

During the Ming and Qing (1616–1912) dynasties, a large number of people from the Minnan region (southern Fujian) migrated to Taiwan. Many local deities, including Sanping Patriarch, Qing Shui Patriarch, Bao Sheng Da Di, and Mazu, accompanied the Fujianese immigrants to Taiwan. Once these deities took root in Taiwan, they became local guardian deities and were endowed with additional functions. Over time, these deities experienced varying degrees of development, adapting to the evolving historical context. The Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan has developed a distinct localized lineage, markedly different from that of the ancestral temple, through the reconstruction of religious roles, variations in ritual practices, and the expansion of its social functions.

3.1. Transmission Routes and Major Branch Temples in Taiwan

The transmission of the Sanping Patriarch belief into Taiwan primarily relied on the clan-based networks of immigrants from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou. Its earliest presence can be traced back to the Qing dynasty.16 According to incomplete statistics, there are currently 15 temples in Taiwan that primarily venerate the Sanping Patriarch (

Table 1. Temples in Taiwan with Sanping Patriarch as the principal deity.

No.	Temple Name	Establishment Time	Location
1	Yanchao Sanping Temple	pre-1753	Yanchao Dist., Kaohsiung
2	Zhushan Sanping Temple	1789	Nantou County, Taichung
3	Hua’an Temple (Guangji Palace)	1797	Baihe Dist., Tainan
4	Sanping Patriarch Temple, Talu	1810	Ligang Township, Pingtung
5	Jixin Yongan Temple	1861	Wujie Township, Yilan
6	Qianzhen Sanlong Temple	Guangxu era (1875–1908)	Qianzhen Dist., Kaohsiung
7	Danei Feian Temple	1883	Danei Dist., Tainan
8	Nanchang Guangzhou Temple	1951	West Central Dist., Tainan
9	Xinguang Sanlong Temple	1964	Qishan Dist., Kaohsiung
10	Xikou Zushigong Temple	1966	Xikou Township, Chiayi County
11	Tianzhong Sanping Temple	1977	Guanmiao Dist., Tainan
12	Guangji Leiyin Temple	1986	Yongkang Dist., Tainan
13	Sanping Guangji Temple	1988	Anping Dist., Tainan
14	Yongan Bici Temple	1999	Yong’an Dist., Kaohsiung
15	Guidong Sanping Temple	2013	Guanmiao Dist., Tainan

Source: Data compiled from Chang (2020), Hsieh (2025), and Lu (2025).

), with a concentrated distribution in areas such as Tainan and Kaohsiung, where Zhangzhou and Quanzhou 泉州 immigrants historically settled (Figure 3). This spatial pattern reflects the close relationship between the spread of the belief and the migratory routes of southern Fujian settlers. It is thus evident that the Sanping Patriarch belief is more prevalent in southern Taiwan, mainly because many Zhangzhou immigrants landed and settled in this region (Dong 2013, p. 31).

Today, the sources of incense offerings to the Sanping Patriarch in Taiwan come from places such as Sanping Temple in Pinghe County (e.g., Zhushan Sanping Temple 竹山三坪院) and the Quanzhou or Chaozhou 潮州-Shantou 汕頭 regions (e.g., Yanchao Sanping Temple 燕巢三坪宫), as well as some local incense offerings from within Taiwan itself (e.g., Xinguang Sanlong Temple 新光三龍寺). At its core, this belief system centers on the Sanping Monastery in Pinghe County, Zhangzhou. The spread of the belief in Taiwan followed two primary transmission routes, primarily facilitated by the clan-based networks of Zhangzhou and Quanzhou migrants during the Ming and Qing dynasties. On the one hand, ancestral traditions were maintained in Taiwan through lineage networks; on the other hand, geographic adaptation enabled the integration of diverse local communities. These two pathways complemented each other and together promoted the dissemination of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan.

The first transmission pathway is kinship-based, relying on clan lineage to maintain the continuity of incense offerings. For example, the Sanping Temple (Sanping Gong 三坪宮) in Xiyan 西燕 Village, Yan Chao 燕巢 District, Kaohsiung City, founded before 1753, features a stele dated to the thirteenth year of the Daoguang 道光 reign (1833), titled “Sanping Temple Deity’s Birthday Performance and Donation Stele” (Sanping Gong Shendan Yanxi Juanti Beiji 三坪宮神誕演戲捐題碑記) (National Central Library, Taiwan Branch 1833), which details the financial contributions made by the temple’s followers from the Yuanjiao Zhongzhuang area for land, rent, and donations to fund performances for the deity. Almost all donors bore the surname Lin 林, reflecting a dominant participation of the Lin clan among local devotees. Local accounts note that the Lin clan once organized the “Twenty-Four Lin Associations” as ritual groups dedicated to worship (Chang 2020, p. 46). Local folklore tells of mysterious legends involving the appearance of a sacred serpent.

The temple celebrates the birthday of the Sanping Patriarch on the sixth of November, in accordance with the tradition of worshiping the attendant deities and holding theatrical performances to honor the deity, which aligns with the customs of the original Sanping Patriarch belief in Fujian, showing a clear continuity of the tradition.

Another case is the Sanlong Temple (Sanlong Si 三龍寺) in Xinguang 新光 Village, Qishan 旗山 District, Kaohsiung, which originally housed deities for private worship. In 1961, local elders proposed the idea of building a temple to enshrine the Sanping Patriarch. Most of the residents’ ancestors come from Pinghe, Zhangzhou, and more than half of them have the surname Chen 陳. The Sanping Patriarch is particularly revered for his miraculous powers in healing diseases, and followers use the base of his statue as a medicinal talisman (Hsieh 2017, p. 121). Through the clustering of same-lineage groups and the continuation of ancestral traditions from the homeland, this practice not only reinforced religious cohesion but also sustained cultural identity among migrants.

The second transmission model is community integration based on geographic proximity. This model, actively promoted by local communities, constructs cross-ethnic beliefs through joint worship of multiple deities. For example, Yong’an 永安 Temple in Jixin 季新 Village, Wujie 五結 Township, Yilan 宜蘭 County, enshrines the golden statue of the Sanping Patriarch, which was brought from Fujian by a merchant named Lin Gua 林瓜 in the twenty-fourth year of the Jiaqing 嘉慶 reign (1819). Initially placed in his home, as miraculous efficacy became widely recognized, the temple gradually attracted immigrants for worship. Lin Gua simultaneously invited the statues of the Sanping Patriarch and the Qingshui Patriarch, and through their joint enshrinement actively mediated the religious differences between Zhangzhou and Quanzhou immigrants.

The Sanping Patriarch repeatedly manifested divine powers, not only healing diseases and repelling pests but also protecting fishermen at sea. Thus, his role expanded from a local healing deity to a maritime guardian, embodying the symbolic meanings of “epidemic relief” and “safeguarding,” while addressing the survival needs of fishermen from diverse ancestral origins. According to temple inscriptions, Lin Damu 林大目 served as manager in 1928, Qiu Yongjin 邱永金 in 1946, and Zhang Bailang 張栢郎 as chairman in 1972, showing that the worshippers became increasingly heterogeneous, yet remained united in their dedication to the temple’s construction and development. The temple venerates multiple deities, including the Sanping Patriarch, Qingshui Patriarch, Bodhidharma, and attendant deities, with an incense lineage rooted in Quanzhou immigrant beliefs. The temple also retains the traditional practice of distributing medicinal prayer slips. Additionally, it holds the traditional celebration of the Sanping Patriarch’s birthday, specifically the “Three Sixes Event”17, a key ritual of the temple. Through festival celebrations and cooperation in daily temple affairs, differences among groups were gradually dissolved, marking the lived process of community integration.

Another example is Feian Temple (Feian Gong 飛安宮) in Huanhu 環湖 Village, Danei 大內 District, Tainan 台南 City. The temple’s origin dates back to the ninth year of the Guangxu 光緒 reign (1883), when a plague broke out in the area. The local people built the temple to pray for the Sanping Patriarch’s intervention to end the epidemic (Chang 2020, p. 54). This act highlights the “epidemic relief” aspect of the Sanping Patriarch’s divine functions. In 1959, a preparatory committee was established for the temple’s reconstruction18, comprising eleven members of different surnames, including Zheng Shuishen 鄭水深, Xu Sanjiang 許三江, and Ye Qingshun 葉清順, who were publicly elected to fund and manage the temple jointly, thereby better balancing the interests of diverse community groups. Today, the temple enshrines not only the Sanping Patriarch but also the Cankui Patriarch 慚愧祖師, the Qing Shui Patriarch 清水祖師, Guanyin Buddha 觀音菩薩, and other deities. This reflects the polytheistic religious needs of immigrants from southern Fujian and Guangdong. The birthday of the Patriarch celebrated at this temple falls on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month.

Additionally, within Taiwanese folk religion, there exists a phenomenon of conflation or mutual substitution among Patriarch deities. For instance, the Hua’an Temple (Guangji Palace) 廣濟宮化安寺 in Tainan originally enshrined the Sanping Patriarch as its primary deity. However, with the rise of Qingshui Patriarch devotion and resulting divine identity blending, the temple gradually shifted its primary veneration to Qingshui Patriarch. Nonetheless, the temple still preserves the Inscription of Guangji Patriarch Temple Property (Guang Ji Zu Shi Miao Chan Bei Ji 廣濟祖師廟產碑記) (National Central Library, Taiwan Branch 1835) dated to the fifteenth year of the Daoguang 道光 reign (1835), which attests to the historical presence of Sanping Patriarch worship. The stele records mention eleven surnames, indicating the presence of worshippers from different lineages in the area. In addition, Tianzhong Sanping Temple, originally named “Wanfu Hall 萬福堂” and principally dedicated to the Qingshui Patriarch, underwent a shift after the temple’s statues were stolen. In response to the community’s anxiety, the Sanping Patriarch, through spirit-writing divination, bestowed the new temple name “Sanping Temple” and became the principal deity. Nevertheless, many devotees today continue to regard the Qingshui Patriarch as the principal deity. This strategy of integrating deities from multiple ancestral homelands to construct cross-ethnic religious identities not only helps preserve original homeland memories but also facilitates the transmission and localization of the belief within Taiwanese society.

Worshippers of the same lineage in different settlements could conveniently achieve deeper geographic integration through devotion to the deities of major temples, while within a single settlement, even members of different surnames could still be united through shared religious belief (Lin 2000, pp. 78–79). Therefore, the survival and development of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan relied not only on lineage networks and community integration but also on these two complementary pathways—simultaneously satisfying the religious needs of diverse groups and promoting the localization and sustained flourishing of the belief.

3.2. Localization of the Belief in Taiwan

The Sanping Patriarch belief was introduced to Taiwan during the Qing dynasty. It retained ritual practices consistent with those of the ancestral Sanping Monastery in Pinghe County, including the worship of attendant deities, theatrical performances for the Patriarch’s birthday celebrations, and the use of medicinal prayer slips. These shared practices indicate a clear lineage and continuity between the two regions. However, the development of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan goes beyond mere preservation of homeland traditions; it reflects a dynamic process of localization shaped by interactions with local religious cultures and social environments. This dynamic evolution is primarily reflected in the expansion of divine functions, the innovation of ritual practices, and the reconstruction of religious symbols.

The original roles of the Sanping Patriarch as a healing and rain prayer deity have been expanded in Taiwan to include new functions such as maritime protector—exemplified by Jixin Yong’an Temple 季新永安寺, Yilan—and community guardian, thereby addressing the needs of residents and consolidating the belief’s social standing. At the same time, some Sanping Patriarch temples have taken on greater social engagement, serving as community centers and donation sites. The Yanchao Sanping Temple 燕巢三坪宮, for example, illustrates this transformation of religious spaces into venues for public service.

Ritual practices also demonstrate a combination of continuity and innovation. Branch temples in Taiwan uphold traditional rituals for the Patriarch’s birthday, such as theatrical performances and procession prayers for blessings, but they also incorporate modern elements to engage younger generations. At Zhushan Sanping Temple 竹山三坪院 in Nantou 南投, besides traditional operatic performances, contemporary music and dance evenings are hosted, alongside modernized celebrations such as the “Techno Prince Parade dance 電音三太子,” reflecting an entertainment-driven adaptation of traditional rituals. Complementing this trend, Yanchao Sanping Temple has integrated the Taoist ritual of “Crossing the Seven-Star Safety Bridge 過平安七星橋” into the Patriarch’s birthday celebrations, thereby enriching the event’s religious significance and enhancing devotees’ participatory experience through diversified ritual forms. Furthermore, the adaptation of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan is also evident in the use of digital media. Most temples have established Facebook pages and disseminate event videos via platforms such as YouTube, thereby constructing virtual belief communities. This strategy not only broadens the participant base and enhances the efficiency of transmission but also resonates with dissemination patterns observed in Southeast Asia.

Finally, there is a reconstruction and reinterpretation of religious symbols. The Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan exhibits a marked tendency toward syncretism in divine identities, often overlapping with the Qingshui Patriarch, the Three Generations Patriarchs 三代祖师, and others. For instance, temples such as Hua’an Temple (Guangji Palace) 廣濟宮化安寺 in Tainan, Tianzhong Sanping Temple 田中三平宮 in Tainan, and Sanlong Temple 三龍宮 in Qianzhen 前鎮 (Kaohsiung) have experienced shifts in their principal deity worship. Moreover, at Nanchang Guangzhou Temple 南廠廣州宮 in Tainan, a spirit medium narrative emerged portraying Yang Wulang 楊五郎 as an incarnation of the Sanping Patriarch. This localized innovation in religious symbols stems primarily from two interrelated historical and social dimensions. On the socio-cultural level, the survival needs of settler communities drove the integration of Zhangzhou and Quanzhou folk beliefs as mutual recognition became essential for collective development (Yan 2001, p. 118). Simultaneously, at the ethnic-identity level, the intermingling of southern Fujian and Cantonese populations, which was facilitated by flexible attitudes toward divine genealogies, fostered the emergence of a hybrid “Patriarch” identity (Hsieh 2025, p. 22).

3.3. Interaction with the Ancestral Temple in Taiwan

The Sanping Patriarch branch temples in Taiwan maintain close ties with the ancestral temple in Pinghe County, Fujian, based on geographic, kinship, and spiritual connections. Most Taiwanese branch temples bear the name “Sanping”, which not only reflects the cultural heritage of the ancestral temple but also serves to uphold its legitimacy and orthodoxy. Moreover, these branch temples enshrine the attendant deities, the Serpent Attendant and Tiger Attendant, preserving the mythological narratives associated with the Sanping Patriarch and his Serpent Attendant, as well as retaining practices such as the use of medicinal prayer slips—for example, Zhushan Sanping Temple 竹山三坪院, established in the 54th year of the Qianlong 乾隆 reign (1789). Although the Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan has undergone localization and development, these deep-rooted connections have ensured continued close interaction between temples across the two regions. This interaction primarily manifests in the following aspects:

• Pilgrimage to the ancestral temple. Numerous Sanping Patriarch branch temples in Taiwan regularly or irregularly organize pilgrimages for devotees to the ancestral temple. For example, the Sanping Guangji Temple 三平廣濟宮 in Tainan City has made multiple pilgrimages to the Pinghe ancestral temple. In 1988, devotees at this temple witnessed the Serpent Attendant and Tiger Attendant at the ancestral temple. Upon returning to Taiwan, they crafted statues of the attendants based on photos from the ancestral temple for enshrinement and worship.19 This process not only perpetuated the ancestral belief but also deepened cultural ties across the Taiwan Strait.
• Exchange and interaction. Beyond pilgrimages from Taiwanese branch temples to the ancestral temple, the ancestral temple organized cultural exchange delegations to Taiwan in 2009 and 2013. Additionally, in 2009, the “Cross-Strait (Pinghe) Sanping Patriarch Cultural Association” was established to promote exchanges and cooperation between the two sides. Taiwanese branch temples actively participate in various celebratory events hosted by the ancestral temple, such as Sanping Patriarch cultural folk (intangible cultural heritage) activities. This bidirectional interaction not only reconstructs the close relationship between the main temple and its branches but also strengthens Taiwanese devotees’ cultural identification with their ancestral homeland through the belief network.

The Sanping Patriarch belief in Taiwan is not a mere replication of the ancestral temple model but rather demonstrates both continuity and adaptability within the local context. While preserving core deities (the Sanping Patriarch and the Attendant Deities), major festivals, and traditional rituals to maintain the lineage connection with the Fujian ancestral temple, the belief also actively integrates and absorbs deities and cultural elements from diverse ethnic groups. It engages in symbolic reconstruction and localization, facilitating its development within Taiwan’s pluralistic religious landscape. This localization strategy enables the Sanping Patriarch belief to become a distinctive regional religious form. The similarities and differences between this Taiwanese localization model and the developments in Southeast Asia will be the focus of subsequent discussion.

4. The Sanping Patriarch Belief in Southeast Asia

Since the Tang dynasty, the Fujian region has witnessed patterns of overseas migration closely tied to maritime trade. As previous studies have noted, “by the Tang Dynasty, some people from Fujian had already arrived at ports in Southeast Asia and Japan, engaging in commercial or handicraft activities” (Lin and Qiu 2005, p. 214). With the expansion of transregional trade networks, the scale of emigration also gradually increased. In the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, Chinese seafaring merchants from the Fujian province were frequenting markets in Japan and Korea (Sen 2011, p. 53). Southeast Asia likewise emerged as a significant destination for both trade and migration. The people of southern Fujian were verifiably venturing abroad in large numbers by the eleventh century, with Champa as a significant destination (Wade 2009, p. 230).

During the Song and Yuan (1271–1368) dynasties, the number of immigrants to Southeast Asia gradually increased. As Fukami (2004, p. 56) notes, “by the Southern Song dynasty 南宋 (1127–1276), a significant number of Chinese had already settled in Southeast Asia, and the Malay Peninsula had developed into a mature Chinese settlement area”. These immigrants mostly settled in areas with convenient transportation and thriving trade, such as present-day Sumatra, Java, the Malay Peninsula, and the Philippines.

It is noteworthy that this wave of migration was closely tied to the development of maritime trade. As Sen (2011, p. 72) emphasizes, “in fact, members of Chinese diasporic communities may have found it easier and more profitable to operate from Java, Malacca, or other ports in Southeast Asia,” since these ports not only connected the trade networks between China and India but also provided convenient routes for merchants to circumvent the Ming dynasty’s maritime prohibition policies. These prohibitions, in effect, gave rise to the smuggling trade at Yuegang 月港 in Zhangzhou. As Chang (2019, p. 229) points out, “after the Ming government opened Yuegang in Zhangzhou in 1567, although the port flourished rapidly, smuggling remained active.”

With the flourishing trade at Yuegang in Zhangzhou, local industries—especially porcelain manufacturing—also experienced significant development. As Wang (2019, p. 104) notes “during this period, the porcelain exported via Yuegang was primarily produced in Pinghe County, Zhangzhou—the core region of the Sanping Patriarch belief. These Zhangzhou ceramics were exported to Southeast Asian markets and other regions along maritime trade routes.” Through the circulation of commodities such as porcelain, Zhangzhou merchants established stable trade networks with ports across Southeast Asia, which in turn facilitated population movements and cultural transmission. The expansion of maritime commerce not only promoted the flow of goods but also created favorable conditions for the southern Fujian migration wave and the dissemination of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Southeast Asia.

4.1. Transmission Routes and Major Branch Temples in Southeast Asia

These immigrants, facing the dangers of maritime routes and the uncertainties of their future, would not only pray to local deities before embarking on their journeys but also carry with them the deities’ statues or incense ash to take along on their travels to Southeast Asia. As Amrith (2013, p. 88) points out, “every migrant in a new place seeks to recreate some trace of home; arrival becomes a kind of return. Building replicas of shrines they had known, migrants made new landscapes familiar. Sharing rituals, they made intimates of strangers. Seeing their journeys in the footsteps of holy men, they overcame their fears of the unknown.”

Within the religious belief systems of these immigrant communities, the Sanping Patriarch belief constitutes a significant component. Its transnational dissemination has been strongly driven by geographical proximity and kinship networks, consistently following the migration routes of southern Fujian emigrants. Upon arriving in new settlements, Chinese migrants often organized native-place associations and clan-based societies based on shared geographic origins and lineage ties. They also actively participated in rituals held by temples and public cemeteries (Yishan 義山), all of which provided a vital social foundation for the propagation of the Sanping Patriarch belief abroad (Song 2025, p. 9).

According to incomplete statistics, there are a total of eleven temples or clan associations in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia that venerate the Sanping Patriarch as their principal deity (Figure 4).

Malaysia is a major destination for Chinese immigrants moving southward, mainly due to its convenient maritime transportation. According to current data, there are four temples or associations in Malaysia where Sanping Patriarch is enshrined as the principal deity and an additional three temples where he is worshipped as a subsidiary deity (

Table 2. Temples and clan associations honoring Sanping Patriarch in Malaysia.

No.	Temple	Location	Founding Year	Principal Deity	Subsidiary and Attendant Deities
1	Poh Onn Kong Temple	Malacca	1781	Sanping Patriarch	Qingshui Patriarch, Mazu, the Serpent Attendant, the Tiger Attendant, and others
2	Chiang Chew Association	Malacca	1936	Sanping Patriarch	Shakyamuni Buddha, Qingshui Patriarch, Guanyin, and others
3	Chong Ann Teng Temple	Malacca	1970	Sanping Patriarch	Qingshui Patriarch, Guanyin, Mazu, Datuk Gong, and others
4	Nan Tian Temple (Zu Shi Gong Temple)	Tanjung Sepat, Selangor	1913	Sanping Patriarch	the Serpent Attendant, the Tiger Attendant, Guanyin, and others
5	Matang Hock Chuan Keong Temple	Taiping, Perak	1895	Three Loyal Princes of the Song	Sanping Patriarch, Qingshui Patriarch, PuAn Patriarch, and others
6	Aulong Hock Lok Keng Temple	Taiping, Perak	1929	Qingshui Patriarch	Sanping Patriarch, GuanDi, Datuk Gong, and others
7	Aulong Qing Yun Tan Temple	Taiping, Perak	1986	Qingshui Patriarch	Sanping Patriarch, SanDai Patriarch, Datuk Gong, and others

Sources: Compiled by the author based on data from AngKongKeng.com and New Gazetteer of Sanping Temple (Lu 2025).

).

Malacca, as a key port on the Malay Peninsula, holds significant geographical value in connecting Eastern and Western trade routes. It also served as a significant settlement area for Fujianese immigrants to Southeast Asia, becoming a crucial site for the establishment and development of the Sanping Patriarch belief in the region. The Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca epitomizes the transmission routes and early characteristics of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Southeast Asia.

The Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca, established during the Qing Dynasty’s Qianlong period (1735–1796), is the earliest in the region dedicated to the Sanping Patriarch. In the Qianlong reign, the father of Seow Kian Huat (蕭建發), from the Zhangzhou area, brought the incense from Pinghe County’s Sanping Temple southward and installed it in Malacca.

Centuries ago, the temple was situated by the bustling Malacca River, a vital passage for merchants and travelers. It was not only a crossing point via a small suspension bridge for residents on both sides of the river but also a settlement area for the Chinese community. The name “Poh Onn Kong Temple,” meaning “safeguarding,” reflects the devotees’ prayers for the Patriarch’s blessings of peace, epidemic protection, and safety. As such, the temple became a spiritual center for early immigrant communities and, to a certain extent, facilitated interaction and integration among different ethnic groups in the area.

According to the analysis of the 1841 stele inscription titled “Xiaodiaoqiao Zhongyuan Pudu Re-donation Commemorative Text” (Xiao Diao Qiao Zhong Yuan Pu Du Zai Juan Yuan Xu Wen Mu Ban 小吊橋中元普渡再捐緣序文木板), all 84 donors were members of southern Fujian communities from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou. Among them, the most significant contributor was Tan Kim Seng 陳金聲—the third Tengzhu (亭主) of Cheng Hoon Teng Temple 青雲亭 in Malacca and a native of Yongchun 永春—followed by Chee Yam Chuan 徐炎泉, the chairman (館主) of Malacca’s Hokkien Huay Kuan (福建會館), originally from Longxi 龍溪 County (Franke and Chen 1982, p. 285). This situation indicates that the community involved with the Poh Onn Kong Temple extended beyond solely Zhangzhou natives and reflects the widespread influence of the Sanping Patriarch belief within the Chinese community in Malacca, where it had already developed into a shared and public form of Chinese religious belief.

The main deity worshipped in this temple is the Sanping Patriarch, with the Qing Shui Patriarch and the Three Generations Patriarch (Sandai Patriarch 三代祖師) enshrined on either side. Additionally, the temple also venerates several other deities, including Pu’an Patriarch (普庵祖師) and Guangze Zun Wang (廣澤尊王). This diversity reflects, from another perspective, the openness and adaptability of immigrant communities in reshaping their pantheon to accommodate the pluralistic religious and cultural environment of Southeast Asia.

In Pinghe County’s Sanping Temple, a plaque with the inscription “Zhanghua Xianrui” (樟花獻瑞) hangs in the Patriarch’s Hall, and a similar plaque can also be found in the Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca, which additionally preserves a Talisman Stamp dedicated to the Sanping Patriarch from the Guangxu reign (Figure 5). The inscriptions cited here, based on a restored print from this block (Figure 6), further indicates a strong historical connection between the two temples.

The Talisman Stamp is carved with images of the Serpent Attendant and the Tiger Attendant, demonstrating that the belief in these two attendants was transmitted to Malacca along with the worship of the Sanping Patriarch. In 2017, Poh Onn Kong Temple ceremonially invited the statues of the two attendants from Sanping Temple in Pinghe back to the temple for enshrinement. On the one hand, this act signifies that the veneration of the attendants had previously been interrupted in Poh Onn Kong Temple; on the other hand, it reflects the temple’s strong desire to restore and complete the religious system surrounding Sanping Patriarch. Emotionally, the act of restoring the statues of the attendants can be seen as akin to an overseas child yearning for a family reunion, filled with deep longing for a complete and unified belief.

The worship of the Sanping Patriarch spread to Indonesia along with trade and Chinese migration. The main centers include the Vihara Dharma Loka Temple in Makassar, South Sulawesi; the Vihara Khema Tjouw Soe Kong Temple in Jakarta; and the See Hin Kiong Temple in Padang, West Sumatra.

The Vihara Dharma Loka Temple was founded in 1655 by Yang Lai Mai 楊來邁, a native of Nanjing 南靖, Zhangzhou. It is the earliest overseas branch of Sanping Temple (Lu 2010, p. 259). Its establishment marked the beginning of the transnational spread of the belief, providing Zhangzhou immigrants with a cultural and emotional link to their ancestral homeland.

The Vihara Khema Tjouw Soe Kong Temple22 in Jakarta was founded in the late Qing period (1840–1912), located in Indonesia’s capital city and near the coast. It not only serves as a religious center for the local Chinese community but also reflects cross-ethnic interaction. Susilo’s (2024, p. 7) field research notes that “in addition to the incense burners essential for Chinese worship, the temple’s altar also features traditional Indonesian incense burners (kemenyan), allowing people to choose their mode of worship according to their customs”. Moreover, the temple sustains its daily operations by utilizing its spare spaces for business and economic purposes (Susilo 2015, p. 12).

Both of these temples enshrine the Sanping Patriarch as their principal deity. Additionally, the See Hin Kiong Temple in Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia, venerates Sanping Patriarch as a subsidiary deity. The founding histories of these temples, the routes through which Sanping Patriarch belief was transmitted locally, and their influence on both the Chinese communities and interethnic relations in their respective regions all merit further research.

In summary, the early dissemination and rooting of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Southeast Asia primarily relied on overseas Chinese immigrant communities and commercial networks. Its vitality lies not only in the continued transmission from the ancestral temple but also in its capacity to adapt and innovate within a multicultural environment. The following section will further analyze the distinctive localization characteristics that have emerged in Southeast Asia, including the integration of deity lineages, functional expansion, and innovations in religious practices.

4.2. Localization of Belief in Southeast Asia

The localization process of the Sanping Patriarch belief in Southeast Asia is the result of its interaction with the region’s diverse social environment. As such, it manifests distinctive features. One important aspect lies in the integration of pantheons. In Southeast Asian countries, the Sanping Patriarch is worshipped alongside both the original southern Fujian and traditional Chinese deities, as well as local deities such as Malaysia’s “Datuk Gong.” Datuk Gong’s belief is Chinese in origin but also distinctly Malaysian, reflecting the dual identity of the Chinese community in Malaysia as both ethnically Chinese and nationally Malaysian (Tan 2020, p. 70). Early Sanping temples in Malacca mainly enshrined southern Fujian and Chinese deities, whereas later temples such as Chong Ann Teng Temple (established 1970) incorporated Datuk Gong, Tan and Toh (2021, pp. 621–28) state: “The Chinese adoption of Datuk Gong worship, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, reflects a blend of cultural adaptation and reverence for local traditions”. The inclusion of Datuk Gong increased participation from non-Chinese residents. For example, in Malacca, the Machap Baru’s 1960s Datuk Gong birthday eve united Chinese, Malay, and Indian devotees through film screenings and ronggeng dances. On the birthday itself, regardless of the distance between their home and Machap, all the devotees invariably gathered at the Datuk Gong temple, halal-compliant offerings were prepared, and incense prayers were conducted (Wang et al. 2020, p. 218).

Similar strategies appear in Indonesia; for instance, the Vihara Khema Tjouw Soe Kong Temple in Jakarta incorporates indigenous spirits such as Ibu Eneng and Embah Said Areli Dato Kembang (perhaps a Muslim Chinese of the entourage of Admiral Cheng Ho—and his wife Ibu Eneng; Heuken 1989, p. 137), who were Indonesians. Several other temples in Java also worship these deities. Their altars contain no statues, as Indonesians traditionally worship them while believing they are Muslims (Susilo 2024, p. 7). This incorporation of local Muslim saints into Chinese temples essentially represents a survival strategy for the belief system within a multicultural context. As Setiawan (2024, p. 13) observes, “such phenomena reflect the visiting Chinese community’s expectation for multicultural coexistence,” while further expanding the belief’s cross-ethnic influence through localization.

Equally significant is the functional expansion of the belief within Chinese diasporic communities. The Sanping Patriarch is not only regarded as a religious refuge but also plays a role in uniting the Chinese diaspora and preserving Chinese cultural heritage. Against the backdrop of a declining proportion of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, temples are regarded as cultural symbols that bear the responsibility of safeguarding Chinese traditions (Tan 2025, p. 25). This symbolic role is reinforced through public welfare and charitable activities.

For example, the Sanping Patriarch’s birthday celebration at Poh Onn Kong Temple occurs on the sixth day of the sixth lunar month. On the day of the Patriarch’s birthday, the temple hosts a ritual to pray for blessings by touching a turtle23 (Figure 7), which is believed to bring good luck to the person and their family. After the completion of the Blessing Turtle Ceremony at the Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca, part of the rice collected during the event is distributed to worshippers for their safety and blessings. At the same time, the remainder is generously donated to elderly care homes, orphanages, and refugee groups regardless of ethnicity.

The temple also engages in disaster relief, elder care, educational support, and other charitable activities, embodying the spirit of Sanping Patriarch’s “compassion and broad charity” (Cibei Weihuai, Guangshi Jikun 慈悲為懷，廣施濟困). Such initiatives not only expand the religious space but also help the Chinese community build a positive image within multicultural societies, facilitating integration into mainstream society. Organizations such as the Chiang Chew Association in Malacca likewise offer scholarships to members’ children, further strengthening community cohesion.

In addition to pantheon integration and functional expansion, localization is also reflected in innovation in religious practices. The Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca actively utilizes multiple digital platforms—Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and its official website—to broadcast pilgrimage events and promote various activities. In 2023, the temple hosted a “Guangji”-themed short video competition, receiving over 20 submissions; the winning entries were used as promotional videos for the temple. Moreover, in June 2025, it organized a children’s coloring contest titled “Little Helpers of the Deities, Big Love Giveaway,” aiming to convey the Sanping Patriarch’s compassionate spirit through creative works and attract younger generations of devotees.

At the same time, the temple has established a “History Corridor” integrating modern technology, where visitors can scan QR codes to access information about the temple’s history and deities. It has digitized its artifacts and archival materials, extending the dissemination of belief from traditional community networks into the digital cultural space. Additionally, the temple hosts thematic lectures on “The Folk Culture of the Turtle,” offers workshops for handcrafting incense, and publishes cultural books such as Ageless Benevolence: A Temple’s Heritage. This blend of traditional and digital approaches not only deepens the public’s understanding and recognition of the culture of Sanping Patriarch but also effectively promotes the inheritance and development of traditional Chinese culture.

4.3. Interaction with the Ancestral Temple in Southeast Asia

Branch temples of the Sanping Patriarch in Southeast Asia maintain rich relations with the ancestral temple in Fujian. These overseas branch temples actively undertake pilgrimages to Fujian to trace their roots and enthusiastically participate in various celebrations hosted by the ancestral temple. This transmission and interaction are sustained through ancestral incense-offering rituals and migrant networks, which not only preserve the purity of the original homeland belief but also foster unique cultural integration within the branch temple spaces.

For example, in 2017 and 2024, members of the Poh Onn Kong Temple council returned to Sanping Temple in Pinghe County to respectfully receive the incense and statues of the two guardian deities—the Serpent Attendant and the Tiger Attendant. Such cross-border ritual activities reinforce transnational belief networks and strengthen the cultural ties between migrant communities and their homeland.

In recent years, the Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca has actively promoted the hosting of the Sanping Patriarch Cultural Festival in Malacca, aiming to enhance information exchange and experience sharing between the ancestral temple and branch temples worldwide, thereby jointly advancing the sustainable development of Sanping Patriarch belief both domestically and abroad.

Through an analysis of the various Sanping Patriarch temples in Southeast Asia, it is evident that there exists a profound and enduring link of inheritance between these temples and the ancestral temple in Pinghe County. While preserving traditional customs from their homeland, the branch temples also integrate local cultural elements, such as the worship of Datuk Gong.

The worshippers also represent a diverse demographic, not limited to Fujianese Chinese but also encompassing people of other ethnicities and linguistic backgrounds. For example, the Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca includes a small number of Indian devotees. These branch temples are also actively engaged in charitable and public welfare activities and sustain the vitality of the Sanping Patriarch belief through cultural innovation.

5. Discussion

Based on the study in the preceding chapters, this section provides a comparative analysis of the transmission patterns, localization characteristics, and social functions of the Sanping Patriarch belief across three regions: the ancestral temple in Fujian, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. It aims to reveal the commonalities, differences, and underlying causes behind these regional variations.

5.1. Commonalities

The Sanping Patriarch belief has consistently preserved its core “Sanping” spirit—pacifying rebellion, warding off epidemics, and ensuring peace—across the ancestral temple, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. Devotees in all three regions share an intense devotion to the Patriarch’s compassionate mission of universal salvation and his protective role in averting disasters and invoking blessings. As the spiritual “root” for branch temples around the world, the ancestral temple symbolizes the orthodoxy and legitimacy of the belief tradition. At the same time, the Sanping Patriarch belief functions as a crucial cultural bond—maintaining kinship ties, reinforcing cultural identity, and transmitting Chinese heritage. While the emphasis on the Serpent and Tiger Attendants varies by region, these guardian figures are widely venerated in both Fujian and Taiwan. In Southeast Asia, however, due to historical discontinuities, they exist primarily as symbolic representations, reflecting a fundamental continuity of core mythological elements. This demonstrates that although local practices may vary, the presence of shared elements ensures the continuity of a core religious identity across time and space.

5.2. Differences

The Sanping Patriarch belief demonstrates remarkable adaptability in the process of cross-cultural transmission. Due to regional differences in historical, political, economic, and cultural contexts, it exhibits distinct variations across six dimensions: (1) transmission mechanisms, (2) sources of devotees, (3) mythological symbols, (4) divine roles and functions of the Patriarch, (5) core ritual practices, and (6) social functions. Through an examination of these dimensions, we gain a clearer understanding of how this belief has sustained its influence across different societies.

• Differences in transmission mechanisms. In Fujian, the propagation of the Sanping Patriarch belief has been driven mainly by local government initiatives, including heritage branding, scenic site management, and festival-based cultural promotion. As Chia (2022, p. 88) has noted, “the Sanping Patriarch belief became an invented tradition during this period for expanded religious tourism in Pinghe County.” In Taiwan, the transmission is centered on clan networks and community integration, with the belief serving as an essential bond that sustains internal cohesion within kinship groups and facilitates external social relations. In Southeast Asia, dissemination has depended on commercial networks and migrant communities, where the belief has transcended ethnic boundaries through cultural adaptation in multi-ethnic societies. Such variations illustrate how social structures and contextual conditions shape the pathways of religious transmission.
• Differences in the sources of devotees. At the ancestral temple, devotees are primarily concentrated in traditional centers of belief such as Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, and Chaozhou in Guangdong. In Taiwan, the followers primarily consist of descendants of Zhangzhou and Quanzhou immigrants, continuing a strong sense of ancestral-place identity. In Southeast Asia, however, due to the region’s multi-ethnic social structure, the multi-ethnic outreach extends beyond the Chinese diaspora. For example, Indian visitors at Poh Onn Kong Temple in Malacca participate in the Patriarch’s birthday celebrations and engage in practices such as incense offerings and divination. In Jakarta, the Vihara Khema Tjouw Soe Kong Temple attracts non-Chinese communities—including Muslims—by incorporating local deities such as Ibu Eneng, blending cultural elements to foster broader appeal. Thus, the sources of devotees not only reflect historical migration patterns but also shape the strategies of religious dissemination.
• Differences in the interpretation of mythological symbols. Both Fujian and Taiwan continue the tradition of venerating the Serpent and Tiger Attendants as guardian figures of the Patriarch, primarily tasked with protecting devotees by patrolling territories, warding off evil, and ensuring safety. In Taiwan, these figures have further evolved through localized myth-making, such as incorporating the historical figure Yang Wulang into the Patriarch’s narrative. In Southeast Asia, however, due to a rupture in the transmission of the attendant deities and the absence of supporting mythological narratives, these figures are retained more as symbolic representations of ancestral temple culture rather than active components of local religious imagination. This comparison highlights the profound influence of local history on the depiction and functions of mythological figures.
• Differences in divine roles and functions of the Patriarch. In the ancestral temple in Fujian, the Sanping Patriarch is worshipped primarily as both a rain deity and a healing deity, retaining a distinct divine identity. In Taiwan, however, joint worship with other Patriarchs—such as Qingshui Patriarch—has led to a blurring of his original divine roles. Additionally, historical migration has endowed him with a unique function as a maritime protector. In Southeast Asia, the Patriarch is worshipped alongside local deities such as Datuk Gong and Embah Said Areli Dato Kembang but still maintains his independent divine status. These differences reveal the dynamic nature of divine attributes, which continuously evolve through regional interactions and multicultural exchanges.
• Differences in core ritual practices. The ancestral temple in Fujian strictly adheres to the traditional “Three Sixes” ritual calendar in commemorating the Patriarch. In contrast, some branch temples in Taiwan do not follow the birthday date of the Patriarch as set by the ancestral temple. For instance, Fei’an Temple in Danei celebrates the deity’s birthday on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month. Such adjustments reflect both the need to accommodate local circumstances and the incorporation of innovative elements. For example, Sanping Temple in Zhushan Township has introduced modern performances—such as the Techno Prince Parade dance and contemporary song-and-dance shows—into its birthday celebrations, successfully attracting younger generations. Temples in Southeast Asia, on the other hand, continue to observe the original date of the sixth day of the sixth lunar month. At the same time, they adapt traditions through ritual reinvention—for instance, combining the turtle petitioning ritual with charitable activities. While both Taiwan and Southeast Asia sustain the vitality of belief through innovation, the former emphasizes cultural continuity, whereas the latter prioritizes the expansion of social functions. This comparison indicates that ritual practices mediate the tension between traditional continuity and contemporary needs.
• Differences in the transformation of social functions. In Fujian, the modernization of the Sanping Patriarch belief has been led by local government efforts, incorporating it into the intangible cultural heritage system and promoting the conversion of religious resources into economic capital. At the same time, the core “Sanping” spirit has been reinterpreted with modern values—such as “peace of mind, equality for all beings, and a lifetime of safety” (Zhou 2025, p. 99)—to align with contemporary social governance objectives. With administrative support and financial resources, the influence of the belief has been significantly expanded. In Taiwan, branch temples rely on clan-based networks and operate under community self-governance models that strengthen local identity. While this model limits broader influence, it maintains intense grassroots penetration through close-knit community ties. In Southeast Asia, the belief has evolved into a public religion by promoting interethnic integration through charitable and community service activities. Despite the absence of official funding, its vitality is sustained through flexible practices—such as spreading belief content via short videos on TikTok and organizing mutual aid programs—ensuring the continued relevance of the Sanping Patriarch belief within multicultural societies. The social functions of this belief show that religious institutions adapt strategically while preserving their cultural core.

The above differences are not accidental but stem from the distinct historical backgrounds and social conditions of the three regions. The first factor is migration history and origins: Taiwan’s population mainly descends from Zhangzhou and Quanzhou immigrants, whereas the Chinese communities in Southeast Asia often exist as ethnic minorities, leading to divergent transmission paths and adaptation strategies. The second factor is religious policy: Taiwan’s relatively relaxed religious regulations combined with its strong Chinese cultural traditions provide fertile ground for the belief, while in Southeast Asia, the belief must navigate a competitive multi-religious environment to secure its survival space. The third factor is cultural interaction: the varying degrees of cultural inclusiveness and interaction across regions also shape the depth and scope of the belief’s integration. Together, these underlying factors reveal the intrinsic logic behind the Sanping Patriarch belief’s cross-regional diversification.

Through comparative study, it is evident that the cross-regional persistence and development of the Sanping Patriarch belief depend on a dynamic balance between “maintenance of orthodoxy” and “local innovation.” This dialectical relationship is not a passive compromise but a creative transformation realized through interactive processes. On one hand, the belief in identity is upheld by mechanisms such as the branch incense system and fixed birthday dates; on the other, local elements are actively incorporated to enhance contemporary adaptability—such as the Techno Prince Parade dance in Taiwan and charitable activities in Southeast Asia. It is precisely this cultural resilience and capacity for innovation that have sustained the continuous development of the belief system.

6. Conclusions

This study reveals the intrinsic mechanisms of the cross-regional transmission of Chinese folk religion by comparatively analyzing the dissemination and localization practices of the Sanping Patriarch belief in the ancestral temples of Fujian, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia.

The vitality of this belief lies in the integration of the core “Sanping spirit” (pacification, epidemic relief, and safeguarding) with pragmatic social functions, forming a stable foundation for its transmission. This dual sacred and secular nature enables the belief to adapt flexibly to diverse social needs. At the same time, divergent transmission paths have emerged as a result of geopolitical, economic, and cultural conditions: the revival in Fujian relies primarily on administrative resources; the Taiwanese communities mentioned above depend on clan and kinship networks; and the continuation of the belief in Southeast Asia draws on commercial networks and migrant communities. Together, these factors have shaped the distinctive trajectories of the Sanping Patriarch belief.

Equally important is the dynamic interplay between “orthodoxy preservation” and “localized innovation”. Practices such as incense pilgrimage to the ancestral temple and fixed commemorative dates ensure continuity with tradition, while local adaptations—including electronic parade troupes or joint worship with Datuk Gong—inject vitality into the belief system. The transformation from material carriers, such as talisman boards, to digital platforms such as YouTube further transcends temporal and spatial boundaries, reshaping the modes of believer participation.

Finally, the cross-cultural transmission of folk religion involves a process of cultural reconstruction that blends local narratives with universal values. In the case of the Sanping Patriarch belief, stories of Serpent and Tiger Attendants are integrated with ideals of compassion and widespread salvation, creating a multilayered religious structure. The catalytic role of such mythological figures in sustaining and disseminating the belief, although often overlooked, deserves closer scholarly attention.

By comparatively examining the ancestral temple in Fujian, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia, this research broadens the regional perspective of Sanping Patriarch belief studies. It highlights the dialectic between “orthodoxy preservation” and “localized innovation” as a key mechanism in the cross-cultural transmission of Chinese folk religion.

This study is based on a literature review and preliminary fieldwork. Future research will intensify field investigations in Southeast Asia to collect more firsthand data and further uncover the mechanisms of the Sanping Patriarch belief’s cross-cultural adaptation in diverse religious contexts.