Temple du Gol
Saint-Louis, Réunion
- Deities
- Vishnu
- Traditions
- vaishnava
- Worship status
- active
- Address
- Camp du Gol, Saint-Louis, Réunion
- Coordinates
- -21.2757, 55.401
- Darshan hours
- Varies by temple and season; consult the temple's own trust/management for the current daily schedule before visiting.
- Best time to visit
- Year-round; visitors should note the temple has been recognized as a protected historic monument since 1996 and was selected for national heritage restoration funding (Loto du patrimoine) in 2019.
- How to reach
- In Saint-Louis, on Réunion's southwestern coast; reachable by road from Saint-Denis, Réunion's capital, or via Roland Garros Airport.
Location
Open in Google MapsThe Temple du Gol in Saint-Louis, on Réunion’s southwestern coast, was commissioned by Gabriel Le Coat de Kervéguen, a wealthy sugar planter and industrialist, in the mid-nineteenth century - most sources give 1852 or 1856 as the construction date, though a smaller, explicitly hedged set of accounts places the building later, between 1905 and 1910, under a descendant, Robert Le Coat de Kerveguen. French Wikipedia describes it as “le plus vieux temple hindou de l’île” - the oldest Hindu temple on Réunion. As with other Réunion temples of this era, it was built to serve the island’s growing population of Indian, largely Tamil, indentured laborers recruited to work sugar estates after the abolition of slavery in 1848 left planters facing a severe labor shortage.
Dedicated to Vishnu, the temple is distinguished by its interior painted frescoes depicting scenes from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, a rare survival of narrative temple painting from this period on the island. In recognition of its age and cultural significance, the Temple du Gol was listed in full on France’s official inventory of historic monuments on 29 March 1996, and in 2019 it was selected as one of Réunion’s emblematic sites for France’s national heritage lottery (Loto du patrimoine) restoration program, funding aimed at preserving the building for future generations.
Sources
- historical record: Cross-checked against French Wikipedia's 'Temple du Gol' article: confirms the temple was commissioned by wealthy planter and industrialist Gabriel Le Coat de Kervéguen, that it was built either in 1852 or 1856 according to the article's main account (with a separate, less-favored account in some sources placing construction between 1905 and 1910, under Robert Le Coat de Kerveguen), that it is dedicated to Vishnu, that its interior features painted frescoes depicting scenes from the Ramayana and Mahabharata, that it was listed in full on the Inventaire des Monuments historiques on 29 March 1996, and that it was selected in 2019 among the island's emblematic sites for France's national heritage lottery (Loto du patrimoine) restoration funding program.
- historical record: Re-verified on a later pass, quoting French Wikipedia directly: the main account reads 'Le temple est construit en 1852 ou 1856, par ordre du richissime planteur et industriel Gabriel Le Coat de Kervégen,' while the alternative account is explicitly hedged by Wikipedia's own wording as a lesser-confidence claim: 'Selon certaines sources, le temple est bâti entre 1905 et 1910, au moment où l'habitation appartient à Robert Le Coat de Kerveguen' ('According to some sources...'). This confirms Wikipedia itself frames 1852/1856 as the primary claim and 1905-1910 as a secondary, hedged one. The same article also states the temple is 'le plus vieux temple hindou de l'île' (the oldest Hindu temple on the island) and gives its address as Camp du Gol, Saint-Louis, with infobox coordinates 21°16'32.6"S, 55°24'03.6"E (now recorded above).
For review
- Sources disagree on the temple's founding date: French Wikipedia's main account gives 1852 or 1856, commissioned by Gabriel Le Coat de Kervéguen, while a secondary account explicitly hedged by Wikipedia itself ('selon certaines sources') places construction between 1905 and 1910, under a different family member, Robert Le Coat de Kerveguen. This entry follows the article's primary (1852/1856) account but flags the conflict rather than presenting either date as certain.