I have to say that, to the extent this theory is true, it is true only in a very trivial sense.  It is the kind of proposition one finds it difficult to disagree with, but which tells one very little about the subject at hand.

Of course "practices" (making offerings etc) are generally a feature of religion, and of course those practices are usually connected with a belief in what one might broadly term a "supramundane reality". But one surely wants to say "So what?" It's the kind of definition one might read in a dictionary. But what does it tell us about the nature of religious experience? What does it tell us about the the nature of the human impulse that leads to the birth of religions?  The definition is behaviorist, and like most behaviorist accounts (sorry if this sounds harsh) very superficial.

It's like saying that falling in love is "carrying out certain certain conventional courtship practices associated with a belief in the superior qualities of a particular human being". 

DA