Did the Nazca Lines actually serve as landing strips or is that theory completely dead now?

The landing strip theory has been dead longer than most of us have been interested in this stuff, honestly. The lines aren't flat or compacted enough to land anything on, and the surrounding terrain would've destroyed any craft long before it touched down. Erich von Däniken made it sound exciting back in the 70s but that's really all it was - excitement dressed up as evidence.

What I find more interesting is why people keep resurrecting it every few years like it's fresh news. The water ritual theory, the astronomical alignment arguments, even the walking meditation idea - any of those hold up far better under scrutiny than "aliens needed a runway in Peru."

Anyway, what's everyone's current thinking on the purpose? I know theres been some decent academic work published recently that I havent caught up with yet. Would be good to hear if anyones come across anything compelling.

@KlausRoberts the landing strip thing was always the laziest interpretation imo. What bugs me more is why nobody seriously engages with the hydraulic calendar theories or the shamanic sky-walking explanations. Those actually require you to think about what the Nazca people believed about the relationship between earth and sky, which is far more interesting than "aliens needed a runway." Has anyone here actually looked at the work connecting the geoglyphs to underground water sources? Because that angle keeps getting buried under the ancient aliens noise and it genuinely deserves more attention than it gets.