Universal symbols vs. universal space

I am reading The Temple in the House: Finding the Sacred in Everyday Architecture by Anthony Lawlor.

This book describes elements that are universally present and sacred or meaningful [the gate, path, and destination] in all cultures. The steeple, or tall element, is a universally symbolic element.

But universal space is not necessarily achievable by the culmination of universal symbols. To what extend are these symbols really legible as metaphors? Is it too classical (ie. representative) or Venturian (ie. decorated shed or applique) to consciously apply these forms in order to find meaning? Are they powerful only when stumbled across or found unintentionally? No. This must not be true.
Symbols can be consciously employed, but likely compose more successful space when not intentionally metaphorical. The narrative rarely reads in architecture, but the space does.
So powerful universal space may contain these elements, perhaps unintentionally, but it's point or purpose cannot be solely defined by these characteristics.