Did the Mark of the Beast Have to Be Literal & Physical?

I just had a thought about the mark of the beast, for further study.

John saw another 'beast' 'marking' people with the 'name' or 'number' of the 'beast', and forbidding those not 'marked' from buying or selling.

Could it be that this 'mark' was never to necessarily be a literal mark? or was it to be a physical mark?

The 'beast' who gave the 'mark' wasn't literally a 'beast' - so why should we be dogmatic that the 'mark' he was to give should be literal and physical?

The 'beast' whose 'name' and 'number' the other 'beast' 'marked' people with was not a literal beast either - so why should the 'mark' bearing his 'name' or 'number' be literal and physical?

When a metephorical 'beast' gives a 'mark' - chances are the 'mark' is just as metaphorical as the 'beast' who gave it.

If the 'mark' didn't need to be fulfilled literally and physically, it might have meant simply that careful notice and discrimination was to be made by the 'little horn' between those who worshipped the 'beast' and those who refused.

And in that case, a potential fulfillment of the prophecy is no longer limited to circumstances where a literal, physical mark was used, or shall be used. So long as it can be demonstrated that careful discrimination of some form was made between those who worshipped the 'beast' and those who refused - so that those known to have not worshipped the beast were not allowed to buy or sell - then it could suffice as a potential fulfillment of that particular criteria under this prophecy.

Or maybe it has to be literal and physical.

Just a thought! [For further study]