Warning: this Christianity- and Christmas-themed post may offend or disgust. The procedure described is unpleasant for the receiver.
Fertilisation of an egg cell requires sperm to reach it, which does not require breaking the hymen. A thin tube, such as a hollow straw or reed, can be inserted through the small opening in the hymen to pump sperm (obtained via male masturbation) into the vagina. The simplest way to pump the sperm is to suck it into the straw with one’s mouth and then blow it out. Another way is with an enema pump (bulb syringe) that can be constructed with primitive technology: a hollow leather ball glued to a reed using resin, tar or bone glue. The seams of the leather ball can be waterproofed with tar. The ball can be made to spring back into shape after squeezing, e.g. by constructing it with wire hoops or springs inside.
Successful fertilisation with the above method likely requires many attempts, because the probability of pregnancy from unprotected sex during the most fertile part of the menstrual cycle is 30%. Sexual activity causes hormonal changes in the female organism that facilitate fertilisation, which a simple reed insertion probably does not, but it may be possible to create similar hormonal changes with an erotic massage.
The above method can be used to arrange a virgin birth in a primitive society. No miracles are required, although a virgin giving birth may be marketed as miraculous.
Modern in vitro fertilisation technology of course expands the range of ways to engineer a virgin birth.
Ronald Fisher analyzed signalling in biology through traits that do not confer direct fitness advantage (higher survival or fecundity), but are desired by the opposite sex. This attraction is an equilibrium in a coordination game – if a potential mate has traits desired by the opposite sex, then the offspring with that mate are likely to have these traits as well and succeed in attracting the opposite sex. The traits confer a mating advantage, which is part of a fitness advantage, justifying the desirability of the traits.
It is a coordination game, because in a different equilibrium, traits without a direct fitness advantage are not desired. Then these traits do not give a mating advantage to the offspring and therefore do not have an indirect fitness advantage either. Then it is not fitness-enhancing to desire them. In summary, if a trait is expected to be desirable in the future, then it is desirable now, and if a trait is expected to be neutral or undesirable, then it is neutral or undesirable now.
Fiat money is inherently worthless, but in one equilibrium of the money game, has positive value in terms of other goods. If everyone expects that others will accept money in return for goods in the future, then it is useful to obtain money now. So everyone is happy to deliver goods in return for (a sufficient sum of) money now. The money game is a coordination game, because if everyone expects money not to be accepted in the future, then they do not give goods for money now. If money is expected to be worthless, then it is worthless, and if money is expected to be valuable, then it is valuable.
An overview of signalling in biology is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory and Fisher’s theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway
The coordination game of money is studied by Kiyotaki and Wright (1989, 1993): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1832197 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117496 and more simply explained in van der Lecq “Money, coordination and prices” https://books.google.com.au/books?id=r1r40SB0Wn8C&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=fiat+money+coordination&source=bl&ots=iI0M96m-qz&sig=lRHBAWIXYZs2V5S-iNFeH-2yar8&hl=et&sa=X&ei=d3lqVeneJ8TvmAX4vIGgDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=fiat%20money%20coordination&f=false