Wow, the article thinks that it's odd that a wilderness area doesn't have running water. Amazing.
I'm thinking this journalist needs a massive smack to the side of the head for his idiocy.
I would assume the author meant a water source like a river.
That is also what I was concerned about. If there is no nearby source of water, how good an ‘agricultural’ area would it be that a temple would be built there.
Of course, because it may have no water source today doesn’t mean it didn’t have one then.