I do not see evidence in this piece, only opinions. The mere fact that religion has been utilized in exploitation of people does not in of itself render religion a falsity. You discuss an outcome, but the outcome does not necessarily imply falsity of relevance of religion.
In finance and economics, we talk about moral hazard and implications for interactions within markets or society.
So let’s assume there really is a God who commits discussions of His Person and Will to men who teach others. The moment those people make money off attracting people to congregate to them for worship in some location, moral hazard can set in and such people can misrepresent God within context of religion or religious practices. Sometimes it takes bad constructs of good teachings to attract the rich to religious services. Since agents make more money if they attract the rich, religion always can be hijacked. Possibility of hijack can derive from moral hazard, however, as opposed to normative falsity of religion.
Bad religion does not necessarily imply religion is a falsity — an Agent can misrepresent a Principal within context of a Principal-Agent relationship.
I believe in spirituality not religion and write about spirituality. At the core of every religion there are spiritual truths that at times are used for exploitation but which those seeking spirituality can harness for good.
I attempt to harness for good.