Randomized trial explores digital service satisfaction among pilgrims, suggesting cultural relevance enhances experience.
Purpose This study investigates pilgrims' post-adoption satisfaction with digital services during the Maha Kumbh religious event organised in 2025 through an extended technology-acceptance lens. The main focus is on the influence of technological and cultural factors on the use of AI-enabled and mobile-based platforms at a sacred mega event. Design/methodology/approach Initially, a mixed-mode survey of 384 pilgrims was conducted during the holy event. Afterwards, PLS-SEM was used to evaluate a model comprising technology awareness, engagement with digital platforms, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, cultural relevance and perceived trust as antecedents of digital-service satisfaction among pilgrims. Findings Results indicate that pilgrims' active engagement with the digital ecosystem, culturally relevant content and ease of use are positively associated with post-adoption satisfaction. Subsequently, perceived usefulness negatively correlates with satisfaction, thus implying that efficiency-centric cues may interrupt and conflict with ritual expectations. Moreover, technology awareness and perceived trust do not exhibit direct effects on satisfaction, and trust does not mediate any relationships. Practical implications The findings recommend the design of digital services that are culturally sensitive, user-friendly and engagement-oriented for managing large-scale pilgrimages. Social implications The outcomes enrich the religious event tourism by foregrounding cultural fit and engagement over utilitarian payoff, and provide design guidance for large-scale digital pilgrimages. Originality/value The paper moves technology acceptance research into the area of religious event tourism and shows that cultural fit and experiential engagement are more important than utilitarian attributes in determining digital service satisfaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaiswal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: