Religious heritage in contemporary discourse cannot be regarded as a concept with fixed boundaries or a uniform definition, as it is shaped through the intersections of religion, culture, politics, and heritage-making. Its meaning is consequently transformed through the processes of selection, representation, and official recognition undertaken by heritage institutions. The central problem arises from the disparity between religious communities’ understanding of place and the forms constructed by legal and administrative systems for its identification, assessment, and management. Accordingly, the conservation of religious heritage cannot be achieved solely through the recognition of its historical and architectural attributes; it also requires an understanding of the mechanisms through which religious value is transformed into a matter of public concern and policy. This study aims to explain the evolution of underlying principles, the expansion of the scope of intervention, and the challenges associated with the conservation of religious heritage in international instruments. The research adopted a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach and employed documentary analysis. The analytical corpus comprised conventions, charters, declarations, recommendations, and legal, theoretical, and managerial texts. The documents were selected through purposive sampling and assessed in terms of authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaning. Relevant statements were subsequently extracted and organized into chronological and thematic categories. Their internal relationships, discontinuities, and trajectories of development were then examined through logical reasoning and comparative interpretation. The findings indicate that the protection of religious places initially emerged through guarantees of immunity during armed conflict and the protection of freedom of worship. It gradually expanded to encompass historical, architectural, cultural, and spiritual values, together with setting, landscape, participation, and sustainable management. Despite this expansion, sacred value continues to be recognized through general heritage criteria; the separation of tangible and intangible dimensions disrupts the living interrelationships among the constituent elements of place; and the position of the custodian community rarely extends beyond consultation. On this basis, conservation should be understood as a historical and dynamic relationship among the religious meaning, material form, use, and social continuity of place. Ultimately, the legitimacy of any intervention depends on the extent to which it safeguards the sacred significance of the place, the patterns governing presence and use, and the effective role of the custodian community.